Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' arguments) and which is/are 'weak' arguments) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question
Statement: Should we impart sex education in schools?
Arguments:
1. Yes. All the progressive nations do so.
2. No. We cannot impart it in co-educational schools.
3. Yes. It would certainly help in eradicating the existing misunderstanding and make the younger generation physically and mentally healthier.
4. It will destroy the moral fibre and the highly esteemed value system which we have inherited from our forefathers.
Answer: E
Only II and III are strong. Clearly, the pursuance of a policy in India cannot be based on the pretext that it is followed in other countries because every country has its own environment and situations. So, argument I is vague. Also, imparting sex education in co-educational schools where boys and girls study together, could spoil the atmosphere there and hinder the studies. So, argument II is strong. However, sex education in schools can help students remove their misconceptions and doubts at a stage, when they would otherwise hesitate to discuss the same with others. Also, sex forms an integral part of the future life of the students and knowledge regarding the same, is nothing degenerative and shameful. So, argument III holds strong, while IV does not.
Enter details here
Statement: Should the income generated out of agricultural activities be taxed?
Arguments:
1. No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed.
2. Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources.
3. Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
Answer: C
Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong
Enter details here
Statement: Should there be a total ban on tobacco products and smoking in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It is wrong to smoke away millions of money.
2. No. It will throw thousands of workers in the tobacco industry out of employment.
3. No. The government will lose huge amount of money as it will not earn by way of taxes on these products.
Answer: D
Clearly, smoking needs to be abolished because it is injurious to health and not only to save money. So, argument I is vague. Banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. So, argument II holds strong. Also, tobacco products are a source of big revenue for the government. So, argument III also holds.
Enter details here
Statement: Should there be a complete ban on manufacture and use of firecrackers?
Arguments:
1. No. This will render thousands of workers jobless.
2. Yes. The firecracker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent.
3. Yes. This will be a concrete step to reduce noise and air pollution.
4. No. Use of firecrackers makes certain special occasions more lively and joyful.
Answer: B
Clearly, banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. Besides, firecrackers on burning produce explosive sounds and immense poisonous fumes, which cause both air and noise pollution. So, both arguments I and HI hold. However, to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close down the industry but strict laws against child abuse should be enforced and legal actions taken. Similarly, there are many other ways to make parties boisterous and special events enjoyable. Hence, II as well as IV does not hold strong.
Enter details here
Statement: Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?
Arguments:
1. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
2. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
3. No. There is no such curb in western countries.
4. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.
Answer: D
Clearly, our Constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.
Enter details here
Statement: Should there be complete ban on Indian professionals seeking jobs elsewhere after getting their education in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This is the only way to sustain present rate of technological development in India.
2. No. The Indians settled abroad send huge amount of foreign exchange and this constitutes a significant part of foreign exchange reserve.
3. No. The practical knowledge gained by Indians by working in other countries help India develop its economy.
Answer: A
Clearly, none of the arguments provides a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. So, none of the arguments holds strong
Enter details here
Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in the matter of employment in every field?
Arguments:
1. Yes. They are equally capable.
2. No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
3. Yes. They should also go into the outside world.
Answer: D
In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against their will. They too have the right to be self-dependent. Besides, present-day women are well looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while II does not.
Enter details here
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.
Give answer:
Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting their vote.
2. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions
Answer: E
Clearly, if there were less candidates, the voters would find it easy to make a choice. So, argument I holds. Also, every person satisfying the conditions laid down by the Constitution must be given an opportunity and should not be denied the same just to cut down the number of candidates. So, argument II also holds strong
Enter details here
Statement: Should all the annual examinations up to Std. V be abolished?
Arguments:
1. Yes. The young students should not be burdened with such examinations which hampers their natural growth.
2. No. The students will not study seriously as they will get automatic promotion to the next class and this will affect them in future.
Answer: E
Clearly, neither the students can be burdened with studies at such a tender age, nor can they be left free to take studies casually, as this shall weaken their basic foundation. So, both the arguments follow.
Enter details here
Statement: Is buying things on instalments profitable to the customer?
Arguments:
1. Yes. He has to pay less.
2. No, paying instalments upsets the family budget
Answer: D
In buying things on instalments, a customer has to pay more as the interest is also included. So, argument I does not hold. Moreover, one who buys an item on instalments maintains his future budget accordingly as he is well acquainted with when and how much he has to pay, beforehand. So, argument II is also not valid
Enter details here