Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Answer: B

Clearly, argument I gives a reason in support of the statement and so it does not hold strong against it. The adult education programme needs to be given priority because it shall eliminate adult illiteracy and thus help in further spread of education. So, only argument II is strong enough.

Answer: E

Clearly, instead of improving upon higher education, increasing the literacy rate should be heeded first. So, argument I holds. Also, more number of universities will produce more degree holders with the number of jobs remaining the same, thus increasing unemployment. So, argument II also holds strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument 2 rests on a principle: in a free country what people eat is their own affair, and a ban would reach far beyond what the state may properly decide. Argument 1 argues from cost, which is a reason for people not to buy such food rather than for forbidding it. Only II is strong.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument 1 objects that trappers make money, which is no reason in itself for a ban. Argument 2 says bans do not work, which would be an argument against every prohibition. Neither reaches the real question - the survival of wild animals. Neither is strong.