Statement - Arguments Questions and Answers

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Argument I claims this is the only way to raise revenue, which is plainly untrue. Argument II points to the size of the rural population, but that says nothing about whether agricultural income should be taxed - and most of it would fall below any threshold in any case. Neither is strong.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II is strong

The two arguments simply assert opposite outcomes, and neither gives any reason for its assertion. A bare prediction with nothing behind it cannot settle the question either way. Neither is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II names a real cost: what is spent on advertising is added to the price the buyer pays. Argument I merely observes that everyone advertises, which is a description of present practice rather than a reason for allowing it. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II raises a genuine difficulty: the cost would fall on a treasury already stretched. Argument I claims free schooling is the only way to raise literacy, which is too strong - teachers, schools and attendance matter as much. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II points to the cost, which is a real consideration. Argument I overstates its case with the word “only”: free schooling is one means of raising literacy among several. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II rests on a constitutional freedom: the right to withhold labour is part of the citizen’s democratic rights. Argument I offers punishment as a way of teaching discipline, which is neither the purpose of such a ban nor likely to achieve it. Only II is strong.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only argument II is strong

Argument II names a real consequence: without such hotels the country would lose the tourists who use them, and the earnings they bring. Argument I tars every luxury hotel with the conduct of a few criminals, which is no ground for banning them all. Only II is strong.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only argument I is strong

Argument I meets the difficulty squarely: officers are reluctant to serve in remote places, and an incentive is the usual way of drawing them. Argument II describes rural life in terms most posted officers would not recognise, and ignores the want of schools, hospitals and other facilities. Only I is strong.

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.