Discussion
Home ‣ Verbal Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
- Statement:
Should bomb disposal be give cooperation by the public?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they are necessary to rescue people's lives.
II. No, they are a nuisance to day-to-day life.
Options- 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
- Correct Answer
- if only argument I is strong
ExplanationI is strong because the security of people's lives should be given utmost priority. II is not strong because something is being dismissed summarily as ''nuisance'' without going into its reasons.
- 1. Statement:
Should newspaper articles be written in a simple language?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they are aimed at general reader.
II. No. newspaper would lose their respect if this happens.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 2. Statement:
Should party X be voted to power?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is the only party capable of bringing in stability.
II. No. it can 't rule the country properly.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 3. Statement:
Should hoardings by roadside be banned?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they are a disturbance to traffic.
II. No. it would result in a loss of revenue.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 4. Statement:
Should subsidy on domestic LPG cylinders be stopped?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It leads to misuse of LPG by housewives who over- cook their food.
II. No. Any subsidy cannot be stopped in a country committed to social welfare.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 5. Statement:
Should voting be made compulsory for all adults?
Arguments:
I. Yes. The candidates then elected would be far more representational.
II. No. The citizens would thereby lose the right to not choose a representative.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 6. Statement:
Should there be repolling at stations where there has been both -capturing?
Arguments:
I. Yes, What else do you think?
II. No, it is a wastage of resources.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 7. Statement:
Should the Knowledge of computers be made essential for employment in offices?
Arguments:
I. Yes, computers are state-of-the -art devices.
II. No, works in office are yet to get fully computerised.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 8. Statement:
Should the monthly quota for liquor be raised by the Ministry of Defence?
Arguments:
I. Yes, troops will do anything if they are promised two things-liquor and leave.
II. No, consumption of too much alcohol is a medical nightmare and leads to dependency.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 9. Statement:
Should the Government bring the prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO)?
Arguments:
I. No, POTO endangers several constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards.
II. Yes, terrorism has become a major threat and existing laws have proved insufficient to combat terrorism.
Options- 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 Discuss
- 10. Statement:
Should fixation of rents be a matter between landlords and tenants?
Arguments :
I. Yes, it is the sole right of landlords to fix rents according to his/her investment to carry livelihood and any intervention in this regard would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
II. No, this would increase the miseries of tenants because if landlords are give free hand they will start extorting money from their tenants.
Options- 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 Discuss
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
I is strong because it is true that a lay reader would be put off by a profusion of technical terms. II is weak because it is not true. Newspapers would over are using simple language and gaining respect thereby.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Only I is strong. A government needs to be stable to take decisions that would help the country develop. II is weak because it does not specify what it means by ''ruling properly.'' The argument is similar to that raised by desperate political parties.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Both are strong argument. A traffic hazard is playing with human lives, which certainly is not desirable. Hence, argument I is strong . II is strong because economic consideration is very important in taking a major decision: consider the tobacco and liquor industries, for example.
Correct Answer: if neither I nor II is strong; and
Explanation:
I is not only a weak argument but absurd! Which house-wife would want to spoil her food by over- cooking it? II is also a weak argument: commitment to social welfare dose not imply blind carrying on of subsidies. The necessity of subsidies needs to be revised from time to time on a case-by -case basis.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
I is strong: the more the number of voters, the better the representation. II is also strong if the concept of voting is seen analytically. When you vote, you decide to be with someone. Now, it is not necessary that you must be with someone. Such a compulsion would be going against the democratic principal .
Correct Answer: if neither I nor II is strong; and
Explanation:
I is not strong because it is a stupid argument. In fact, no reason is being given at all. II is not strong because ''wastage of resources'' cannot be arrived at absolutely; it must be seen in a context.
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong
Explanation:
I is not strong: the reason for the desirability of something is not its ''newness'', but its use. II is strong because it tells us that such a compulsion is not going to benefit us in any big way.
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Argument I does not follow because it does not tell any thing about the quantity of liquor. Argument II is strong because it goes into reason and points out the negative effect of excess liquor.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Both I and II are strong. Infringement of constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards can 't be ignored. Hence I is strong . Argument II is also strong because insufficiency of existing laws gives rise to the need to bring new laws.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.
Explanation:
Argument I is strong because it explains the constitutional rights of a person. II is a weak argument. There is no fear of extortion Because tenants will also be an equal party to rent fixation.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Verbal Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.