Discussion
Home ‣ Verbal Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
- 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
- Correct Answer
- if only argument I is strong
ExplanationParents 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.
- 1. 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
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. 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
- 5. 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 Discuss
- 6. Statement:
Should there be only one rate of interest nor term deposits of varying durations in banks?
Arguments:
I. No, People will refrain from keeping money for longer duration resulting into reduction of liquidity level of banks.
II Yes. This will be much simple for the common people and they may be encouraged to keep more money in banks.
Options- A. if only arhument 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
- 7. Statement:
Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they leave their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
II. No. they leave their homes because of hanger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.
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
- 8. Statement:
Should the oil companies be allowed to fix the price of petroleum products depending on market conditions?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This is the only way to make the oil companies commercially viable.
II. No. This will put additional burden on the retail prices of essential commodities and will cause a lot of hardships to the masses.
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 there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central government?
Arguments:
I. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
II. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.
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
- 10. Statement:
Should non - non vegetarian food be totally banned in our country?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is expensive and therefor it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
II. No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.
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:
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:
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: 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:
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 II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly 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.
Correct Answer: if only arhument I is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for longer durations (the rate of interest being the same for short durations) and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
Correct Answer: if only argument II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement, is vague.
Correct Answer: if only argument II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, Oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds, strong.
Correct Answer: if only argument II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong. Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favor to some people at the cost of government funds. so, argument I does not hold.
Correct Answer: if only argument II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Verbal Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.