Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: A

Clearly, India cannot part with a state that is a major foreign exchange earner to it. So, argument I holds strong. Further, giving away a piece of land unconditionally and unreasonably is no solution to settle disputes. So, argument II is vague.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument 2 names a real benefit: cottage industry provides work where little other employment exists. Argument 1 offers a compliment rather than a reason - creativity is not peculiar to rural people and does not by itself justify the policy. Only II is strong.

Answer: E

Clearly, encouraging the young entrepreneurs will open up the field for the establishment of new industries. Thus, it shall help in industrial development and not only employ the entrepreneurs but create more job opportunities for others as well. So, both the arguments hold strong

Answer: E

Correct answer: Both I and II are strong

Both arguments bear on the question and both carry weight. Formal examinations do press on children who are still growing, which is argument 1; and without any test pupils may not work at all, which is argument 2. The decision turns on weighing the two. Both are strong.

Answer: D

Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold

Answer: B

Clearly, argument I is vague because at present too, many fields are open to all after graduation. However, eliminating the post-graduate courses would abolish higher and specialized studies which lead to understanding things better and deeply. So, argument II is valid

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