Clearly, strike is not a means of indiscipline but only a practice in which the workers exercise their fundamental right to voice their protest against the atrocities of the management. So, argument I is vague while II holds. Also, the option of resorting to strikes often aggravates petty issues and disrupts work for long periods, thus affecting productivity. So, III also holds strong.
2. Statement: Should children be prevented completely from watching television?
Arguments:
No. We get vital information regarding education through television.
Yes. It hampers the study of children.
Yes. Young children are misguided by certain programmes featuring sex and violence.
Clearly, television offers various educational programmes which are of great practical value to the students. So, it serves as a means (but it is not the 'only' means) to educate the masses. Thus, I holds strong while IV does not. Besides, the demerits of watching television, mentioned in II and III, may be done away with by allowing children to watch selected programmes on television, according to a set schedule. So, neither II nor III holds strong.
3. Statement: Should mercy death be legalized, i.e., all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire?
Arguments:
No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity.
Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death.
No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized.
Clearly, mercy death will serve as a liberation to those to whom living is more difficult and painful. But then, it is an inhuman act and does not appeal. So, both arguments II and III hold strong. Besides, it becomes our moral duty to encourage such people to live their lives to the fullest and support them through the crisis/and not demoralize them by allowing them to die if they wish to. Hence, argument I also holds strong.
4. Statement: Should seniority be the only criterion for the promotion?
Arguments:
No. It would be an injustice to those juniors who are more deserving and suitable for higher positions than their senior counterparts.
Yes. Otherwise senior employees do feel humiliated.
Yes. Senior employees are more experienced and must be rewarded for the same.
In an organization, what matters most is productivity and to ensure productivity, the organization needs to have effective managers and innovative, devoted and hard-working employees. Thus, the capability of the individual should be the only criterion for promotion. So, only argument I holds strong, while II and III do not.
5. Statement: Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than through entrance tests?
Arguments:
Yes. It will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.
Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
No. The standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different Boards and universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.
Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because of the expenditure it entails. So, argument I does not hold. Also, students who are intelligent enough to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance tests. So, II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the candidates to uniform test and assessment. So, only III holds strong.
6. Statement: Should there be reservation of jobs in the organizations in the private sector also as in the public sector undertakings in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This would give more opportunities of development to the weaker sections of the society and thus help reduce the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden in India.
No. The private sector does not get any government assistance and therefore they should not be saddled with such policies.
No. Nowhere else in the world such a practice is being followed.
No. The management of the private sector undertaking would not agree to such compulsions.
The reservation of jobs in the private sector too would surely increase opportunities for weaker sections to improve their economic plight. Thus, argument I is strong enough. Also, private sector companies work on a good profit margin and they can and will have to accommodate such a policy if implemented. So, neither II nor IV holds strong. Further, just imitating other countries holds no relevance. So, argument III also does not hold.
7. Statement: Should workers/employees be allowed to participate in the management of factories in India?
Arguments:
Yes. It is the present management theory.
No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.
Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as literacy is an essential criteria to take proper decisions on policy matters regarding management of factories. Besides, workers, if involved in management, would surely be motivated to work more devotedly, thus enhancing productivity. So, both II and III follow. IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts given in II and III. So, IV also does not hold strong.
8. Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in the matter of employment in every field?
Arguments:
Yes. They are equally capable.
No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against their will. They too have the right to be self-dependent. Besides, present-day women are well looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while II does not.
9. Statement: Should government established higher level Institutes of Technology (IIT's) be privatized?
Arguments:
Yes. Privatization will make these institutes financially healthy, competitive and quality conscious.
Yes. Privatization is the key of the new era - can we survive without it?
No. Standard of education of these institutes will fall.
Clearly, privatization leads to betterment in a bid to win over the others in the field and earn both good reputation and money. So, argument I holds strong. Besides, privatization cannot be opted for just because it is the present trend. Also, privatization would, in no way, deteriorate the educational standards. So, neither II nor III holds.
10. Statement: Should there be only one university throughout India?
Arguments:
Yes. This is the only way to bring about uniformity in the educational standards.
No. This is administratively impossible.
Yes. This will make the degrees procured by students, comparable for offering jobs.
The use of the word 'only' in argument I makes it weak. To bring uniformity in educational standards, we can have many universities all following same curricular and policies under one Board. Also, having one university will make the management of education throughout the country almost impossible. So, argument II holds. Besides, it is the variation in the syllabi and assessment of different universities that makes their degrees incomparable, when the students from these universities come together to compete for a job on a common platform. This problem can be eradicated by implementing this scheme. So, argument III also holds strong.