Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: A

The keyed answer is Yes, coal engines pollute the environment more than electric engines.

Coal-fired steam engines burn fuel on board and release smoke, soot and gases directly along the track. Electric engines produce no emissions where they run, and their efficiency is higher, so electrification reduces pollution. This is the environmental case for conversion.

'More powerful and efficient' is true of electric traction but is a secondary argument, while the arguments against conversion are weak: railway traction is a small share of electricity demand, and having enough coal does not answer the pollution problem.

Answer: C

Arguments I and II are both strong.

Both arguments accurately describe how the NHRC carries out the role set out in the statement. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission can inquire into a violation of human rights on its own motion or on a petition presented by a victim or on the victim's behalf, which is argument I, and it is required to undertake and promote research in the field of human rights, which is argument II.

Each therefore directly supports the statement that the NHRC protects and promotes human rights, one on the protection side and one on the promotion side, so options rating only one of them, or neither, as strong are wrong.

Answer: C

Arguments I and II are both strong.

Argument I gives the scientific reason for the advice: diseases such as tuberculosis spread through droplets released when people cough or sneeze, so covering the mouth stops the droplets reaching others.

Argument II explains why the advice matters most in crowded places: with many people close together, the chance of infection is high. Both arguments are relevant and directly support the statement, so options rating only one of them as strong, or neither, are wrong.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument I asserts a right without showing where it comes from; a concession granted by an employer is not a right. Argument II claims the saving would improve facilities, but the cost of the passes is trifling beside the railways’ budget and no such connection is made out. Neither is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II bears directly on the question: fewer holidays mean more working days and so more work done. Argument I rests on a comparison with other countries that is neither established nor decisive - conditions differ from one country to another. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II appeals to a settled principle of the Constitution: a secular state does not distribute posts by community. Argument I claims the opposite of what experience shows - reservation on communal lines sharpens community feeling rather than checking it. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II names a real loss: without support, sportsmen lose the exposure that international competition gives. Argument I is the familiar plea that any money could be spent on the poor, which would rule out every other expenditure equally. Only II is strong.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument I mistakes the remedy: compulsory schooling does not by itself remove the poverty that drives children to work. Argument II claims a rise in the standard of living, which is too remote and too general to bear on the proposal. Neither is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II names a real and serious consequence: a steep rise in fees would shut out able students who cannot pay. Argument I supposes that paying more makes a student earnest, for which there is no ground. Only II is strong.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only argument I is strong

Argument I bears on what universities are for: time and attention given to union politics is taken from study. Argument II appeals to the careers of a few leaders, which says nothing about the effect on students in general. Only I is strong.