Discussion
Home ‣ Verbal Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
- 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
- Correct Answer
- if only argument II is strong.
ExplanationI 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.
- 1. 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
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. 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 Discuss
- 5. 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
- 6. 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
- 7. Statement:
Should there be complete ban on Indian professionals seeking Jobs elsewhere after getting their education in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This is the only way to sustain present rate of technological development in India.
II. No. The Indians settled abroad send huge amount of foreign exchange and this constitutes a significant part of foreign exchange reserve
III. No. The practical knowledge gained by Indians by working in other countries help India develop its economy.
Options- A. None is strong
- B. All are strong
- C. Only I and II are strong
- D. Only III is strong Discuss
- 8. Statement:
Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than through entrance tests?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will be beneficial for those candidates those who reunable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.
II Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
III. No. The standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different Boards and universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.
Options- A. Only I and II are strong
- B. Only II and III are strong
- C. Only I and III are strong
- D. Only III is strong Discuss
- 9. Statement:
Should all the students graduating in any discipline desirous of pursuing post-graduation of the subjects of their choice be allowed to enrol in the post-graduate courses?
Arguments:
I. Yes. The students are the bet judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses.
II. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enrol in postgraduate course and the students must fulfill such conditions.
III. No. There are not enough institutes offering post-graduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.
Options- A. None is strong
- B. Only I and II are strong
- C. All are strong
- D. Only I and III are strong Discuss
- 10. Statement:
Should religion be taught in our schools?
Argument:
I. No. Ours is a secular state
II. Yes. Teaching religion helps include moral values among children
III. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfill its role in the 21st century
Options- A. All are strong
- B. None is strong
- C. Only I is strong
- D. Only II is strong Discuss
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
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 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:
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 II is strong.
Explanation:
Dismissing 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.
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: 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.
Correct Answer: None is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, none of the arguments provide a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Correct Answer: Only III is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because of the expenditure it entails. So, argument I does not hold. Also, students who are intelligent enough to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance tests. So, II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the candidates to uniform test and assessment. So, only III holds strong.
Correct Answer:
Explanation:
Only argument II is strong. The students cannot be enrolled in the courses just on the basis of their interests, but their compatibility with the same also matters. No, I does not hold. Besides, lack of institutes in no criteria to deny post-graduate courses to students.So, argument III also does not hold. II provides a genuine reason and thus holds strong.
Correct Answer: Only II is strong
Explanation:
Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated.In fact,these inculcate moral values. So, argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the students, capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Verbal Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.