Discussion
Home ‣ Logical Reasoning ‣ Statement and Argument Comments
- Question
Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment?
Arguments:
- Yes. The prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.
- No. It is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong
- Correct Answer
- Only argument II is strong
ExplanationThe Constitution of India has laid down the doctrine of 'equality before the law'. So, argument II holds strong. Also, we cannot judge the intentions of a person behind committing a crime, So, argument I is vague. - 1. Statement: Should colleges be given the status of a university in India?
Arguments:
- Yes. Colleges are in a better position to assess the student's performance and therefore the degrees will be more valid.
- No. It is Utopian to think that there will not be nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees by colleges.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 2. Statement: Should articles of only deserving authors be allowed to be published?
Arguments:
- Yes. It will save a lot of paper which is in short supply.
- No. It is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 3. Statement: Does India need so many plans for development?
Arguments:
- Yes. Nothing can be achieved without proper planning.
- No. Too much time, money and energy is wasted on planning.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 4. Statement: Should high chimneys be installed in industries?
Arguments:
- Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.
- No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 5. Statement: Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?
Arguments:
- Yes. It will create job opportunities.
- No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 6. Statement: Can pollution be controlled?
Arguments:
- Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled.
- No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 7. Statement: Should the railways in India be privatized in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises?
Arguments:
- Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public.
- No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 8. Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?
Arguments:
- Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.
- No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 9. Statement: Should all the unauthorized structures in the city be demolished?
Arguments:
- No. Where will the people residing in such houses live?
- Yes. This will give a clear message to general public and they will refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings.
Options- A. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
- 10. Statement: Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government?
Arguments:
- No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
- 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. Only argument I is strong
- B. Only argument II is strong
- C. Either I or II is strong
- D. Neither I nor II is strong
- E. Both I and II are strong Discuss
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument I is vague. Also, at this level the awarding of degrees is impartial and simply based on his performance. So, argument II also does not hold.
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, I does not provide a strong reason in support of the statement. Also, it is not possible to analyze the really deserving and not deserving. So/argument II holds strong.
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Before indulging in new development programme it is much necessary to plan the exact target, policies and their implementation and the allocation of funds which shows the right direction to work. So, argument I holds strong. Also, planning ensures full utilization of available resources and funds and stepwise approach towards the target. So, spending a part of money on it is no wastage. Thus, argument II is not valid.
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and animal life. So, argument I alone holds.
Correct Answer: Either I or II is strong
Explanation:
Opening up of new industries is advantageous in opening more employment avenues, and disadvantageous in that it adds to the pollution. So, either of the arguments holds strong.
Correct Answer: Either I or II is strong
Explanation:
The control of pollution, on one hand, seems to be impossible because of the ever-growing needs and the disconcern of the people but, on the other hand, the control is possible by a joint effort. So, either of the arguments will hold strong.
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
Privatization would no doubt lead to better services. But saying that this is the 'only way' is wrong. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II also seems to be vague.
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
The demolition of unauthorized buildings would teach a lesson to the unscrupulous builders and also serve as a warning for the citizens not to indulge in such activities in the future. This is essential, as unauthorized constructions impose undue burden on the city's infrastructure. So, only argument II holds strong.
Correct Answer: Only argument II is 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 favour to some people at the cost of government funds. So, argument I does not hold.
Comments
There are no comments.More in Logical Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.