Discussion
Home ‣ Verbal Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
- Statement:
Should there be more than one High Courts in each state in India?
Arguments:
I. No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers' money.
II. Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time.
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 II is strong
ExplanationClearly 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.
- 1. Statement:
Should all the practicing doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments:
I. No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
II. Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate , unethical medical practices.
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 the educated unemployed youth be paid "unemployment allowance" by the Government?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kickstart some 'self -employment' venture.
II. No. It will dampen their urge to do something to earn their Livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.
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 agriculture in rural India be mechanized?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It would lead to higher production.
II. No. Many villagers would be left unemployed.
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 private Investors be allowed to invest in defence production?
Arguments:
I. Yes. We should stress on quality. If private investors are allowed to invest in defence production, a competition for good quality will arise among them. This will help us to harness our defence sector whit ammunitions of good quality.
II. No. It will be better to keep our defence sector under veil, otherwise it will create threat to the integrity of the nation.
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:
Would the resumption of cricketing ties contribute to normalisation of Indo-Pak relation?
Arguments:
I. No, normalisation of Indo-Pak relation needs bipartite dialogue to sort out debatable problems.
II. Yes, music , sports etc bring harmony among peoples and it is a well-known fact that sport will definitely help ensure normalization of relations.
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. Statment
Are nuclear families better than joint families?
Argument
I. No joint familes enssure security aand aalsso reduce the burden of work.
II. Yes Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.
Options- A. if only argument I is strong
- B. i only argument II are strong
- C. if either I or II is strong
- D. i neither I nor II is strong aand Discuss
- 7. Statement :
Should there be concentration of foreign investment in only few states?
Argument :
I. No. It is against the policy of overall development of the country.
II. Yes. A large number of states lack infrastructure to attract foreign investment.
Options- A. if only argument is strong
- B. if only argument II are strong
- C. if either I or II is strong
- D. if neither I nor II is strong and Discuss
- 8. Statement :
Should India engage into a dialogue with neighboring countries to stop cross border tension?
Argument:
I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent lives.
II. No. Neighboring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still engage in subversive activities.
Options- A. if only argument I is strong
- B. if only argument II are strong
- C. if either I or II is strong
- D. if neither I nor II is strong and Discuss
- 9. Statement:
Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?
Argument:
I. No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.
II. No. It is against the principle of equality. Does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?
Options- A. if only argument I is strong
- B. if only argument II are strong
- C. if either I or II is strong and
- D. if both I and II are strong. Discuss
- 10. Statement:
Should the sex determination test during pregnancy be completely banned?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This leads to indiscriminate female feticide and eventually will lead to social imbalance.
II. No. People have a right to know about their unborn child.
Options- A. if only argument I is strong
- B. if only argument II are 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 II is strong
Explanation:
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.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. so, arguments I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So argument II also holds.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase the production. So, argument I is strong enough. Argument II is vague because mechanization will only eliminate wasteful employment not create unemployment.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
I is strong argument. It will definitely help to improve the quality of defence goods, because competition always helps to improve quality at lesser expenses. II is strong because the nation's integrity cannot be compromised.
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong.
Explanation:
International sporting events were originally conceived as a promoted of peace and harmony. Hence II is strong. I is not strong because it diverts the question form ''cricketing ties'' to ''bipartite dialogue.''.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Clearly with so many people around in joint family, thhere is more security. Also work is shared. So argument I holds. In nuclear families there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.
Correct Answer: if only argument is strong
Explanation:
An equitable distribution of foreign investment is a must for uniform development all over the country. So, argument I holds. Also, no backward state ought to be neglected, rather such states should be prepared and shaped up to attract foreign investment as well So, II does not hold.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the option, whatever be the issue. So argument I holds strong. Moreover, the problem indicated in II can be curbed by constant check and vigilance. So, II seems to be vague.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of,can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfill the objectives of the Constitution. Thus,both the arguments hold strong.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so, they want to keep only a boy child and do away with a girl child. So, argument I holds. Also, people have a right to know only about the health, development and general well- being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Verbal Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.