Machine-translated by Google. Questions are authored in English.
Top

Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Important Instructions
Direction for [ Question No: 31 To 40 ] :

Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Give answer:

  • (A) If only argument I is strong
  • (B) If only argument II is strong
  • (C) If either I or II is strong
  • (D) If neither I nor II is strong and
  • (E) If both I and II are strong.

31.

Statement: Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary/ Legislative Assembly elections?

Arguments:

1. Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 lose their dynamism and will power.

2. No. The life span is so increased that people remain physically and mentally active even up to the age of 80.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument I rests on a sweeping generalisation about everyone over 65, which is not true of many who serve with distinction. Argument II makes the opposite generalisation about longer life. Neither offers a principle for fixing a limit at that age. Neither is strong.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
32.

Statement: Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?

Arguments:

1. Yes. It will create job opportunities.

2. No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
33.

Statement: Should high chimneys be installed in industries?

Arguments:

1. Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.

2. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
34.

Statement: Does India need so many plans for development?

Arguments:

1. Yes. Nothing can be achieved without proper planning.

2. No. Too much time, money and energy is wasted on planning

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

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
35.

Statement: Should articles of only deserving authors be allowed to be published?

Arguments:

1 Yes. It will save a lot of paper which is in short supply.

2. No. It is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving.

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
36.

Statement: Should colleges be given the status of a university in India?

Arguments:

1. Yes. Colleges are in a better position to assess the student's performance and therefore the degrees will be more valid.

2. No. It is Utopian to think that there will not be nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees by colleges.

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
37.

Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment?

Arguments:

1. Yes. The prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.

2. No. It is our policy that everybody is equal before the law

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

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
38.

Statement: Can pollution be controlled?

Arguments:

1. Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled.

2. No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
39.

Statement: Should the railways in India be privatized in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public.

2. No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
40.

Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.

2. No, teaching faculty will lose control over students

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

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
Loading…

Topics

Other Subjects

Tags: Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers || Statement - Arguments MCQ Questions and Answers || Statement - Arguments GK Questions and Answers || Statement - Arguments GK MCQ Questions || Statement - Arguments Multiple Choice Questions and Answers || Statement - Arguments GK || GK on Statement - Arguments || Reasoning Questions and Answers || Reasoning MCQ Questions and Answers || Reasoning GK Questions and Answers || GK on Reasoning

About Us

ExamsRepo

Copyright © 2026 ExamsRepo . All Rights Reserved . With