Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

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 pollution, which Mumbai already suffers from. Each names a real consequence, so both are strong.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only argument I is strong

Argument I names the purpose of a tall chimney: it releases the smoke well above the ground, where people breathe. Argument II confuses matters - the same quantity of smoke is released either way, so pollution is dispersed rather than increased. 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

Argument II points to the fatal difficulty: no one can draw a line between deserving and undeserving writing without setting up a censor. Argument I offers paper economy, which is trivial beside the freedom to publish. Only II is strong.

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

The Constitution of India has laid down the doctrine of 'equality before the law'. So, argument II holds strong. Also, we cannot judge the intentions of a person behind committing a crime, So, argument I is vague

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

Argument 1 claims privatisation is the only way to bring competition, which is far too strong. Argument 2 speaks of a threat without saying what it is or why privatisation would create it. Neither is strong.

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

Answer: B

The demolition of unauthorized buildings would teach a lesson to the unscrupulous builders and also serve as a warning for the citizens not to indulge in such activities in the future. This is essential, as unauthorized constructions impose undue burden on the city's infrastructure. So, only argument II holds strong