Statement and Argument problems
- 1. Statement: Should children be legally made responsible to take care of their parents during their old age?
Arguments:
- Yes. Such matter can only be solved by legal means.
- Yes. Only this will bring some relief to poor parents.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
Taking care of the parents is a moral duty of the children and cannot be thrust upon them legally, nor such a compulsion can ensure good care of the old people. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
- 2. Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?
Arguments:
- No. This is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.
- Yes. This will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to non-recruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented, will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of it. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
- 3. Statement: Should higher education be completely stopped for some time?
Arguments:
- No. It will hamper the country's future progress.
- Yes. It will reduce the educated unemployment.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, higher education is not the cause of unemployment. In fact, it has created greater job opportunities. So, argument II is vague. Also, higher education promotes the country's development. So, argument I holds.
- 4. Statement: Should we scrap the 'Public Distribution System' in India?
Arguments:
- Yes, Protectionism is over, everyone must get the bread on his/her own.
- Yes. The poor do not get any benefit because of corruption.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the Objectives of a system are not fulfilled because of corruption, then getting rid of the system is no solution. Instead, efforts should be made to end corruption and extend its benefits to the people for whom it is meant. So, argument II also does not hold,
- 5. Statement: Should India have no military force at all?
Arguments:
- No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence.
- Yes. Many Indians believe in non-violence.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, India needs to have military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
- 6. Statement: Are nuclear families better than joint families?
Arguments:
- No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work.
- Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Both I and II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, with so many people around in a joint family, there is more security. Also, work is shared. So, argument I holds. In nuclear families, there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.
- 7. Statement: Should government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports?
Arguments:
- Yes. This money can be utilized for upliftment of the poor.
- No. Sports persons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, spending money on sports cannot be avoided merely because it can be spent on socio-economic problems. So, argument I does not hold. Also, if the expenses on sports are curtailed, the sports persons would face lack of facilities and training and our country will lag behind in the international sports competitions. So, II holds.
- 8. Statement: Should the railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees?
Arguments:
- No. The employees have the right to travel free.
- Yes. This will help railways to provide better facility.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation:
The free passes given to railway employees is a privilege for them, not their right. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II seems to be vague.
- 9. Statement: Should there be compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other?
Arguments:
- No. This is an intrusion to the privacy of an individual and hence cannot be tolerated.
- Yes. This will substantially reduce the risk of giving birth to children with serious ailments.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, such a step would help to prevent the growth of diseases like AIDS. So, only argument II is strong.
- 10. Statement: Should there be a ban on product advertising?
Arguments:
- No. It is an age of advertising. Unless your advertisement is better than your other competitors, the product will not be sold.
- Yes. The money spent on advertising is very huge and it inflates the cost of the product.
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 Discuss
Correct Answer: Both I and II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, it is the advertisement which makes the customer aware of the qualities of the product and leads him to buy it. So, argument I is valid. But at the same time, advertising nowadays has become a costly affair and the expenses on it add to the price of the product. So, argument II also holds strong.
More in Logical Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.