Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

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

Answer: A

Clearly, the advertisements are/the means to introduce people with the product and its advantages. So, argument I holds strong. But argument II is vague because advertisements are an investment for better gain and not a, wastage.

Answer: A

The legislators should surely not be engaged in any other profession because only then will they be able to work with devotion. So, argument I holds. Also, if such a law is enforced, only those people will contest elections who are really prepared to work for the country. So, argument II is vague

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

II gives a substantive reason connected to the proposal: a workforce without computer skills is at a disadvantage in an international market, and school is where such skills are laid down. I is weak on two counts - it treats bread and education as alternatives when they are not, and dismissing a subject as a western model says nothing about whether it is useful.

Answer: B

Clearly, after being in strict discipline and following a formal dress code of the school for so many years, the students must be granted some liberty in college life, as they have to take on the responsibilities of life, next. Besides, schools adopt uniforms to take care of the security of the child - an aspect which doesn't matter much in the colleges. So, argument II holds strong. Also, the environment of the college depends on the students' dedication and etiquettes and not on their uniforms. So, argument I is vague.

Answer: A

Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the best option, whatever be the issue. So, argument I holds strong. Moreover, the problem indicated in II can be curbed by constant check and vigilance. So, II seems to be vague.

Answer: B

Clearly, a world government cannot eliminate tensions among nations because it will also have the ruling group and the opposition group. Further, the more powerful and diplomatic shall rule the world to their interests. So, only argument II holds.

Answer: D

It is not necessary that any practice which has been in vogue for a long time is right and it must be continued. So, argument I is not strong. Also, a practice must be continued or discontinued in view of its merits/demerits and not on grounds of the expenditure or procedures it entails. The policy of transfer is generally practised to do away with corruption, which is absolutely essential. So, argument II also does not hold

Answer: E

Both the arguments are strong enough. The conditions have to be agreed to, in order to save the life of the victims, though actually they ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnappers.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Either I or II is strong

This is the case where both arguments bear directly on the question and pull in opposite directions, each resting on a real consequence of religion - that it can produce fanaticism, and that it binds communities together. Neither can be dismissed, and neither settles the matter, so the answer is that either may be taken as the strong one depending on which consequence is weighed the more heavily.