Yes. It will help in eliminating tensions among the nations.
No. Then, only the developed countries will dominate in the government.
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
Explanation
Clearly, a world government cannot eliminate tensions among nations because it will also have the ruling group and the opposition group. Further, the more powerful and diplomatic shall rule the world to their interests. So, only argument II holds.
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
1. Statement: Should India engage into a dialogue with neighbouring countries to stop cross border tension?
Arguments:
Yes. This is the only way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent lives.
No. Neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still engage in subversive activities.
Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the best 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.
2. Statement: Should there be uniforms for students in the colleges in India as in the schools?
Arguments:
Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.
No. The college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to the college.
Clearly, after being in strict discipline and following a formal dress code of the school for so many years, the students must be granted some liberty in college life, as they have to take on the responsibilities of life, next. Besides, schools adopt uniforms to take care of the security of the child - an aspect which doesn't matter much in the colleges. So, argument II holds strong. Also, the environment of the college depends on the students' dedication and etiquettes and not on their uniforms. So, argument I is vague.
3. Statement: Should 'computer knowledge' be made a compulsory subject for all the students at secondary school level?
Arguments:
No, our need is 'bread' for everyone, we cannot follow western models.
Yes. We cannot compete in the international market without equipping our children with computers.
Nowadays, computers have entered all walks of life and children need to be prepared for the same. So, argument II is strong. Argument I holds no relevance.
4. Statement: Should all the legislators be forced to resign from their profession?
Arguments:
Yes. They will be able to devote more time for the country.
The legislators should surely not be engaged in any other profession because only then will they be able to work with devotion. So, argument I holds. Also, if such a law is enforced, only those people will contest elections who are really prepared to work for the country. So, argument II is vague.
5. Statement: Should so much money be spent on advertisements?
Arguments:
Yes. It is an essential concomitant in a capitalist economy.
Clearly, the advertisements are/the means to introduce people with the product and its advantages. So, argument I holds strong. But argument II is vague because advertisements are an investment for better gain and not a, wastage.
6. Statement: Should the practice of transfers of clerical cadre employees from government offices of one city to those of another be stopped?
Arguments:
No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.
Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many compared to the benefits it yields.
It is not necessary that any practice which has been in vogue for a long time is right and it must be continued. So, argument I is not strong. Also, a practice must be continued or discontinued in view of its merits/demerits and not on grounds of the expenditure or procedures it entails. The policy of transfer is generally practised to do away with corruption, which is absolutely essential. So, argument II also does not hold.
7. Statement: Is paying ransom or agreeing to the conditions of kidnappers of political figures, a proper course of action?
Arguments:
Yes. The victims must be saved at all cost.
No. It encourages the kidnappers to continue their sinister activities.
Both the arguments are strong enough. The conditions have to be agreed to, in order to save the life of the victims, though actually they ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnappers.
Religion binds people together through the name of God and human values. But at the same time it may create differences and ill-will among people. So, either of the arguments holds strong.
9. Statement: Should India become a permanent member of UN's Security Council?
Arguments:
Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity.
No. Let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.
A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. So, argument I holds strong. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.
10. Statement: Should fashionable dresses be banned?
Arguments:
Yes. Fashions keep changing and hence consumption of cloth increases.
No. Fashionable clothes are a person's self expression and therefore his/her fundamental right.
Clearly, imposing ban on fashionable dresses will be a restriction on the personal choice and hence the right to freedom of an individual. So, only argument II is strong.