Statement and Argument problems
- 1. Statement: Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?
Arguments:
- Yes. They make their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
- No. They leave their homes because of hunger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.
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, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.
- 2. Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?
Arguments:
- No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.
- Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances.
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:
Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.
- 3. Statement: Should there be more than one High Court in each state in India?
Arguments:
- No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers' money.
- Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time.
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, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold.
- 4. Statement: Should judiciary be independent of the executive?
Arguments:
- Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.
- No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures.
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, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I holds.
- 5. Statement: Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments:
- No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
- Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
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:
A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
- 6. Statement: Should students take part in politics?
Arguments:
- Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.
- No. They should study and build up their career.
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: Either I or II is strong
Explanation:
Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.
- 7. Statement: Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?
Arguments:
- Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.
- No. Such polls are conducted all over the world.
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:
The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.
- 8. Statement: Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments:
- Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
- No. It will lead to an end of democracy.
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, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.
- 9. Statement: Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?
Arguments:
- No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.
- No. It is against the principle of equality, does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?
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:
Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
- 10. Statement: Should the vehicles older than 15 years be rejected in metros in India?
Arguments:
- Yes. This is a significant step to lower down the pollution level in metros.
- No. It will be very difficult for vehicle owners to shift to other parts in country because they will not get suitable job for their very existence.
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, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.
More in Logical Reasoning:
Programming
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.