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

Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Important Instructions
Direction for [ Question No: 91 To 100 ] :

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.

91.

Statement: Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?

Arguments:

1. Yes. They make their colonies and occupy a lot of land.

2. No. They leave their homes because of hunger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument 2 rests on the humanitarian principle that governs such cases: people who have fled hunger or terror cannot simply be sent back to it. Argument 1 objects to the land they occupy, which is a small matter beside their safety. Only II is strong.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
92.

Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?

Arguments:

1. No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.

2. Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument 2 gives the purpose of a reserve: it carries the country through an interruption of supply or a sudden rise in price. Argument 1 calls the money idle, which mistakes insurance for waste. Only II is strong.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
93.

Statement: Should there be more than one High Court in each state in India?

Arguments:

1. No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers' money.

2. Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time

Answer: B

Clearly, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
94.

Statement: Should judiciary be independent of the executive?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.

2. No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only argument I is strong

Argument 1 states the reason for an independent judiciary: courts that depend on the executive cannot hold it to the law. Argument 2 treats judicial checks as an obstacle to bold action, which is an argument for unchecked power rather than against independence. Only I is strong.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
95.

Statement: Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?

Arguments:

1. No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?

2. Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices

Answer: B

A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
96.

Statement: Should students take part in politics?

Arguments:

1. Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.

2. No. They should study and build up their career.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Either I or II is strong

The two arguments point in opposite directions and each has something in it - politics does teach young people to lead, and it does take time from study. Since neither can be set aside, the answer offered is that one or the other must be given weight.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
97.

Statement: Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.

2. No. Such polls are conducted all over the world

Answer: A

The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
98.

Statement: Should the political parties be banned?

Arguments:

1. Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.

2. No. It will lead to an end of democracy

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument 1 proposes a ban in order to teach politicians a lesson, which is a motive rather than a reason of policy. Argument 2 states a consequence - the end of democracy - but does not show how it would follow from banning parties. Neither is argued for. Neither is strong.

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
99.

Statement: Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?

Arguments:

1. No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.

2. No. It is against the principle of equality, does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?

Answer: E

Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong

Please log in or register to report this question.

Discuss in Forum
100.

Statement: Should the vehicles older than 15 years be rejected in metros in India?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This is a significant step to lower down the pollution level in metros.

2. No. It will be very difficult for vehicle owners to shift to other parts in country because they will not get suitable job for their very existence.

Answer: A

Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment

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