Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument 1 generalises about everyone past 65, which is untrue of many who serve with distinction. Argument 2 makes the opposite generalisation from longer life. Neither gives a principle for fixing the limit at that age. Neither is strong.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Both I and II are strong

Both arguments bear directly on the decision and both are weighty. New industry would create employment, which matters in a crowded city; and heavy industry would add to a pollution problem Mumbai already has. Each names a real consequence, so both are strong.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only argument I is strong

Argument 1 states the purpose of a tall chimney: it discharges the smoke well above the level at which people breathe. Argument 2 confuses dispersal with increase - the same quantity leaves the works either way. Only I is strong.

Answer: A

Before indulging in new development programme it is much necessary to plan the exact target, policies and their implementation and the allocation of funds which shows the right direction to work. So, argument I holds strong. Also, planning ensures full utilization of available resources and funds and stepwise approach towards the target. So, spending a part of money on it is no wastage. Thus, argument II is not valid

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

An argument is strong when it bears directly on the question and carries real weight. II does: any such rule requires a line between deserving and undeserving authors, and if that line cannot be drawn the policy cannot be operated. I is weak because the paper saved is trivial beside the question of who may publish, and it addresses a side effect rather than the merits of the proposal.

Answer: D

Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument I is vague. Also, at this level the awarding of degrees is impartial and simply based on his performance. So, argument II also does not hold

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

II states the principle the question actually turns on - equality before the law - and it is decisive. I rests on an assumption that does not survive examination: prestige is no evidence of intent, and the statement already stipulates that the crime was committed unknowingly, so the argument merely repeats the premise instead of justifying different treatment.

Answer: C

The control of pollution, on one hand, seems to be impossible because of the ever-growing needs and the disconcern of the people but, on the other hand, the control is possible by a joint effort. So, either of the arguments will hold strong.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Both overreach. I claims privatisation is the *only* way to obtain competitiveness and better service, which is plainly not so - regulation, restructuring and competition within the public sector are all available. II asserts a threat to national security from multinationals without any link between private ownership and that threat. A strong argument must be supported as well as relevant.

Answer: A

Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.