The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
2. Statement: Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced?
Arguments:
Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.
Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold.
3. Statement: Should class IV children have Board examination?
Arguments:
Yes. This will motivate the children to study and get higher marks, and thus more knowledge can be imbibed at a younger age.
No. The children will be forced to study and won't enjoy the process.
Yes. In today's competitive world the children need to be prepared right from the beginning to face such difficult examinations.
No. This will add pressure on tender aged children and leave very little time for them to play.
Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also holds. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, I does not hold strong.
4. Statement: Should the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike be enforced strictly?
Arguments:
Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all.
No. Each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion.
No. It does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and rest of the body is not.
Yes. It is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.
Clearly, the rule has been devised for the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this requires strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the discretion of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.
5. 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:
Yes. The students are the best judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses.
No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enrol in post-graduate courses and the students must fulfil such conditions.
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.
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. So, I does not hold. Besides, lack of institutes is 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.
6. Statement: Should we impart sex education in schools?
Arguments:
Yes. All the progressive nations do so.
No. We cannot impart it in co-educational schools.
Yes. It would certainly help in eradicating the existing misunderstanding and make the younger generation physically and mentally healthier.
It will destroy the moral fibre and the highly esteemed value system which we have inherited from our forefathers.
Only II and III are strong. Clearly, the pursuance of a policy in India cannot be based on the pretext that it is followed in other countries because every country has its own environment and situations. So, argument I is vague. Also, imparting sex education in co-educational schools where boys and girls study together, could spoil the atmosphere there and hinder the studies. So, argument II is strong. However, sex education in schools can help students remove their misconceptions and doubts at a stage, when they would otherwise hesitate to discuss the same with others. Also, sex forms an integral part of the future life of the students and knowledge regarding the same, is nothing degenerative and shameful. So, argument III holds strong, while IV does not.
7. Statement: Should coal engines be replaced by electric engines in trains?
Arguments:
Yes. Coal engines cause a lot of pollution.
Yes. Electric engines are good on performance, easy to operate and low on maintenance.
No. India does not produce enough electricity to fulfil its domestic needs also.
Clearly, electric engines shall be smoke-free and thus not cause pollution as the coal engines. They also run at higher speeds and perform better. Thus, both I and II hold strong. Argument III does not provide a convincing reason and hence does not hold strong.
8. Statement: Should all those who are convicted for heinous crimes like murder or rape, beyond all reasonable doubts be given capital punishment or death penalty?
Arguments:
No. The death penalty should be given only in very rare and exceptional cases.
Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take others' lives or indulge in inhuman activities.
Yes. Such severe punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.
Clearly, a person committing a heinous crime like murder or rape should be so punished as to set an example for others not to attempt such acts in future. So, argument III holds strong. Argument I is vague while the use of the word 'only' in argument II makes it weak. Also, it cannot be assured whether a criminal is really repentant of his acts or not, he may also exhibit so just to get rid of punishment. So, argument IV also does not hold.
9. Statement: Should all the profit making public sector units be sold to private companies?
Arguments:
Yes. This will help the government to augment its resources for implementing the development programmes.
No. The private companies will not be able to run these units effectively.
Yes. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of services.
No. There would not be job security for the employees at all the levels.
The government cannot sell off public sector units just to pool up funds for development. Besides, if it does so, these units shall be handed over to private companies which are fully equipped to run these units effectively. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Privatization shall surely ensure better services, but private companies adopt hire and fire policy and they are free to terminate the services of any employee as and when they wish to. Thus, both III and IV hold strong.
10. Statement: Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?
Arguments:
No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
No. There is no such curb in western countries.
Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.
Clearly, our Constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.