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.
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 I is strong
Explanation
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.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Statement: Should there be a world government?
Arguments:
Yes. It will help in eliminating tensions among the nations.
No. Then, only the developed countries will dominate in the government.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Statement: Should an organization like UNO be dissolved?
Arguments:
Yes. With cold war coming to an end, such organizations have no role to play
No, In the absence of such organizations there may be a world war.
An organization like UNO is meant to maintain peace all over and will always serve to prevent conflicts between countries. So, its role never ends. So, argument I does not hold. Also, lack of such an organization may in future lead to increased mutual conflicts and international wars, on account of lack of a common platform for mutual discussions. So, argument II holds.
8. Statement: Should there be no place of interview in selection?
Arguments:
Yes, it is very subjective in assessment.
No. It is the only instrument to judge candidates' motives and personality.
Clearly, besides interview, there can be other modes of written examination to judge candidates' motives. So argument II is not strong enough. However, the interview is a subjective assessment without doubt. So, argument I holds.
9. Statement: Should family planning be made compulsory in India?
Arguments:
Yes. Looking to the miserable conditions in India, there is no other go.
No. In India there are people of various religions and family planning is against the tenets of some of the religions.
Family planning is an essential step to curb population growth. So, argument I holds strong. Also, family planning being against the tenets of some of the Indian religions, it is not necessary to make it compulsory. Instead, it can be enforced by creating public awareness of the benefits of family planning. So, argument II also holds.
10. Statement: Should income tax be abolished in India?
Arguments:
Yes. It is an unnecessary burden on the wage earners.
Income -tax is levied so that every citizen can contribute a share of his earning towards the infrastructural development of the nation. So, argument I seems to be vague. However, income-tax is no doubt a good source of revenue for the government. Hence, argument II holds strong.