Discussion
Home ‣ Verbal Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
- Statement:
Three million tonnes of foodgrains vanished from the Food Corporation of India granaries. Should the officials of the FCL explain it to the people?
Arguments:
I. No. Such losses are a routine matter and therefore do not beg an explanation.
II. Yes. Bungling on such a large scale by publicofficials cannot be condoned; after all it is the people's loss.
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.
ExplanationDismissing the losses as ''a routine matter'' is void of logic. If such losses have become regular, there is all the more reason why they need to be explained. So I is weak. II is strong; accountability is at stake.
- 1. Statement:
Should a poverty-ridden country invest money in hosting international games?
Arguments:
I. Yes, international games bring many countries on a single platform and evolve co-ordination among these countries.
II. No. To host international games, a huge amount of money will be needed which will adversely affect welfare programmes aimed at eradicating poverty.
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 government hike postal rates?
Arguments:
I. No. A large number of poor people get benefits from postal facilities. Increase in postal rates will impede this weaker section to exchange views with others.
II. Yes. Government has been providing postal facility at meagre rates and incurring losses which is not good for the economy of the country.
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 our government allow migrants from other countries to work in India?
Arguments:
I. No. Our country is poverty-ridden and comprises a large number of unemployed people. Any such step will aggravate problems of our country.
II. Yes, It is the duty of every country to pave way for livelihood for all the inhabitants, irrespective of citizenship.
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 we allow foreign scholars to deliver lectures in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes. India is a secular state and our constitution allows every citizen exchange views as one of the fundamental rights.
II. No. Discourses delivered by foreign scholars might adversely affect our age-old existing traditional culture.
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 government doctors be brought within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
Arguments:
I. No, any such will endanger the life of the patient because it will impose some hindrances to the doctors in some cases in which patients are in critical condition.
II. Yes, a patient invests money in improving his/her health. He/she has full right to get required service form doctors and if he/she incurs any loss then for compensation it is necessary to bring the doctors within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
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:
Have the economic reforms proved effective?
Arguments:
I. Yes. There has been a tremendous improvement in the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate.
II. No. The progress that has been made is due to the bounty of the monsoons.
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 firms give priority to getting new clients?
Arguments:
I. Yes. They offer the potential for additional future revenues.
II. No. This would hamper the service being provided to old clients.
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 India be ruled by a coalition of regional parties?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This would give the states more say in the government and hence put an end to secessionist tendencies.
II. No. A coalition government will he unstable and ever in crisis.
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 tobacco production be banned in the country?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Its consumption in any from is injurious to health.
II. No. It brings money to the farmers.
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 India immediately stop digging coal from its mines?
Arguments:
I. Yes, The present stock of coal will not last long if we continue mining at the present rate.
II. No. We do not have alternate energy source of sufficient quantity.
III. No. This will put millions of people at a disadvantage and their lives will get adversely affected and also the industry.
Options- A. Only I and II are strong
- B. Only II and III are strong
- C. Only I and III are strong
- D. All are strong Discuss
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong.
Explanation:
I is weak because though it supports a noble cause, this has nothing to do with poverty. II is strong because affordability cannot be overlooked.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Both are strong arguments. I will hinder the poor citizens but II will minimise the loss form postal services to the government.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.
Explanation:
I is strong argument. As the employment opportunities in India are limited, so any share in it by foreigners will reduce the opportunities for Indians. But II is weak. It is not the duty of any country to give opportunity for work to foreigners.
Correct Answer: if neither I nor II is strong; and
Explanation:
I is weak because the constitutional provision cited here applies only to Indian citizens. II is weak because it is only a tentative proposition. Note the word might.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
I is strong because a doctor may have to take certain risks to save the the patient's life. II is strong because negligence should not deprive the patients of their legitimate rights.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
I is strong : it cites one of the prime indicators of the effectiveness of the reforms. II is also strong because good monsoons mean good agriculture. Since agriculture has a good share in our gross domestic product (GDP) and since good agriculture promotes other sectors of the economy as well, good monsoons will inevitably lead to better economic results. In that case, it is possible that the success is not that of economic reforms.
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.
Explanation:
I is strong because additional future revenues is a welcome prospect for any firm. II is not strong because it can not be assumed that new clients are being made at the cost of old ones.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Both the argument are strong. I is strong because we have seen how some of the states have gone the dangerous way because of a feeling of neglect. The larger parties are dominated by leaders from larger states, so the interests of the smaller ones are given the go-by. II is also strong because we have been witnessing this for quite a few years and also how this has led to a growth slower than expected.
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong.
Explanation:
I is not strong: merely banning production will not put an end to consumption. people may import tobacco and consume it. II is strong because one has to think and re-think before banning a source of revenue.
Correct Answer: Only II and III are strong
Explanation:
Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong. It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong. Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment. So, III also holds strong.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Verbal Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.