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

Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Important Instructions
Direction for [ Question No: 181 To 190 ] :

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 (E) If both I and II are strong.

181.

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

An argument is strong when it bears directly on the question and carries real weight. II does: any such rule requires a line between deserving and undeserving authors, and if that line cannot be drawn the policy cannot be operated. I is weak because the paper saved is trivial beside the question of who may publish, and it addresses a side effect rather than the merits of the proposal.

Please log in or register to report this question.

182.

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.

183.

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

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

II states the principle the question actually turns on - equality before the law - and it is decisive. I rests on an assumption that does not survive examination: prestige is no evidence of intent, and the statement already stipulates that the crime was committed unknowingly, so the argument merely repeats the premise instead of justifying different treatment.

Please log in or register to report this question.

184.

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.

185.

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

Both overreach. I claims privatisation is the *only* way to obtain competitiveness and better service, which is plainly not so - regulation, restructuring and competition within the public sector are all available. II asserts a threat to national security from multinationals without any link between private ownership and that threat. A strong argument must be supported as well as relevant.

Please log in or register to report this question.

186.

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.

187.

Statement: Should all the unauthorized structures in the city be demolished?

Arguments:

1. No. Where will the people residing in such houses live?

2. Yes. This will give a clear message to general public and they will refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings

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.

Please log in or register to report this question.

188.

Statement: Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government?

Arguments:

1. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.

2. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure

Answer: B

Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong; Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favour to some people at the cost of government funds. So, argument I does not hold

Please log in or register to report this question.

189.

Statement: Should foreign films be banned in England?

Arguments:

1. Yes. They depict an alien culture which adversely affects our values.

2. No. Foreign films are of a high artistic standard

Answer: D

Clearly, foreign films depict the alien culture but this only helps in learning more. So, argument I does not hold. Also, the reason stated in argument II is not strong enough in contradicting the ban. So, it also does not hold

Please log in or register to report this question.

190.

Statement: Is buying things on instalments profitable to the customer?

Arguments:

1. Yes. He has to pay less.

2. No, paying instalments upsets the family budget.

Answer: D

In buying things on instalments, a customer has to pay more as the interest is also included. So, argument I does not hold. Moreover, one who buys an item on instalments maintains his future budget accordingly as he is well acquainted with when and how much he has to pay, beforehand. So, argument II is also not valid.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Loading…
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