Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: D

The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to non-recruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented, will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of it. So, argument II also does not hold strong

Answer: A

Clearly, higher education is not the cause of unemployment. In fact, it has created greater job opportunities. So, argument II is vague. Also, higher education promotes the country's development. So, argument I holds

Answer: D

The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the Objectives of a system are not fulfilled because of corruption, then getting rid of the system is no solution. Instead, efforts should be made to end corruption and extend its benefits to the people for whom it is meant. So, argument II also does not hold

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument 1 reports what other countries believe rather than what India would actually face, and argument 2 reports what many Indians believe. Both rest on opinion rather than on what disbanding the forces would mean for the country. Neither is strong.

Answer: E

Clearly, with so many people around in a joint family, there is more security. Also, work is shared. So, argument I holds. In nuclear families, there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.

Answer: B

Clearly, spending money on sports cannot be avoided merely because it can be spent on socio-economic problems. So, argument I does not hold. Also, if the expenses on sports are curtailed, the sports persons would face lack of facilities and training and our country will lag behind in the international sports competitions. So, II holds

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument 1 asserts a right without showing where it comes from; a concession granted by an employer is not a right. Argument 2 supposes the saving would improve facilities, but the sum is trifling beside the railways’ budget. Neither is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument 2 names a real benefit: knowing of a hereditary or communicable condition beforehand can prevent much suffering. Argument 1 invokes privacy in the abstract, whereas the examination would be known only to the two people concerned. Only II is strong.

Answer: E

Clearly, it is the advertisement which makes the customer aware of the qualities of the product and leads him to buy it. So, argument I is valid. But at the same time, advertising nowadays has become a costly affair and the expenses on it add to the price of the product. So, argument II also holds strong

Answer: B

Clearly, the luxury hotels are a mark of country's standard and a place for staying for the affluent foreign tourists. So, argument II holds. Argument I is not a strong reason because ban on hotels is not a way to do away with the activities of international criminals.