Statement–Argument — Should foreign scholars be allowed to deliver lectures in India? Arguments: I) Yes; open exchange of ideas is central to scholarship and benefits students and researchers. II) No; such discourses may harm traditional culture and values. Choose the strong argument(s).
-
Aif only argument I is strong.
-
Bif only argument II is strong.
-
CIf either I or II is strong.
-
Dif neither I nor II is strong; and
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Universities thrive on pluralism and exposure to diverse perspectives. This question tests whether the academic value of open lectures outweighs generalized cultural alarm.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Scholarly talks can be vetted by host institutions.
- Attendance is voluntary and often critical-thinking oriented.
- Cultural resilience is strengthened, not weakened, by engaged debate.
Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it directly advances the educational mission and knowledge exchange. Argument II is weakly asserted, lacking specificity and underestimating institutional gatekeeping (topic review, Q&A). It also presumes fragility rather than intellectual engagement.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify purpose: enrich learning through intellectual exchange.2) Evaluate I: mission-aligned → strong.3) Evaluate II: vague cultural harm without mechanism → weak.Verification / Alternative check:Academic collaborations and visiting lectureships are standard globally, with codes of conduct to address concerns.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Neither” ignore the clear academic benefits or elevate a non-specific fear.
Common Pitfalls:Conflating open lectures with unregulated propaganda; universities moderate content and debate.
Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.