Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

II invokes personal freedom of expression, which is exactly the ground on which a ban on dress would have to be justified or defeated, and it is a strong objection. I is weak: increased consumption of cloth is a minor economic side effect, it is not obviously undesirable, and it comes nowhere near justifying a prohibition on what people may wear.

Answer: A

Clearly, besides interview, there can be other modes of written examination to judge candidates' motives. So argument II is not strong enough. However, the interview is a subjective assessment without doubt. So, argument I holds.

Answer: B

Abolishing the import duty on electronic goods shall reduce the costs of imported goods and adversely affect the sale of the domestic products, thus giving a setback to the Indian electronics industry. So, argument II holds strong. Argument I does not provide a convincing reason.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Both are weak for the same reason - each claims to be the only route. I asserts that only legal means can solve the matter, ignoring social, moral and financial approaches that already exist. II asserts that only this will relieve poor parents, ignoring pensions and welfare provision. An argument that overstates its own necessity in this way invites the counter-example that defeats it.

Answer: A

Clearly, higher education is not the cause of unemployment. In fact, it has created greater job opportunities. So, argument II is vague. Also, higher education promotes the country's development. So, argument I holds

Answer: D

The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.

Answer: A

Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.

Answer: E

Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong

Answer: D

Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold

Answer: B

Clearly, trade unions provide a common platform for the workers to voice their demands and protests and thus ensure that they are not subdued or exploited. So, argument II holds strong, while I and III do not. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument IV also does not hold strong.