Statement and Argument Questions

• Arguments evaluation (exports vs. domestic insufficiency): Should India encourage exports even when many goods are insufficient for internal use? Consider the arguments—(I) Yes: foreign exchange is required to pay for essential imports; (II) No: even selective export encouragement would create shortages—and judge which are strong on logic and relevance.
• Arguments evaluation (drug licensing and local trials): Should all drugs patented and manufactured in Western countries be tried on a sample basis in India before licensing for sale to the public? Evaluate—(I) Yes: dosage and duration may differ for the Indian population, making local evaluation necessary; (II) No: it is not feasible to implement—determine which argument(s) are strong.
• Arguments evaluation (solar energy for national needs): Should India make efforts to harness solar energy to fulfill energy requirements? Assess—(I) Yes: most current energy sources are exhaustible; (II) No: solar needs large capital which India lacks—identify which argument(s) are strong.
• Arguments evaluation (student unions in campuses): Should there be students' unions in colleges/universities? Consider—(I) No: this will create a political atmosphere on campus; (II) Yes: unions are necessary because students are future political leaders—assess which argument(s) are strong based on relevance and sufficiency.
• Arguments evaluation (territorial question about Kashmir): Should India give away Kashmir to Pakistan? Evaluate—(I) No: Kashmir is beautiful and earns foreign exchange, (II) Yes: doing so would help settle conflicts—determine which argument(s) are strong on logic and relevance.
• Arguments evaluation (cottage industries in rural areas): Should cottage industries be encouraged in rural regions? Consider—(I) Yes: rural people are creative, (II) Yes: this would help reduce unemployment to some extent—decide which argument(s) are strong and policy-relevant.
• Arguments evaluation (encouraging young entrepreneurs): Should young entrepreneurs be actively encouraged? Assess—(I) Yes: they will aid industrial development, (II) Yes: they will reduce the burden on the employment market—decide which argument(s) are strong on development and labour absorption.
• Critical reasoning — abolishing annual examinations up to Standard V: Should all yearly exams up to Class V be abolished, considering that young learners' natural growth may be hampered by such burdens, while also weighing the concern that automatic promotions could make students less serious about studies and harm their future preparedness?
• Critical reasoning — recalling Indian scientists working abroad: Should Indian scientists who are working overseas be called back to India, with one view insisting they must serve the motherland irrespective of honours or facilities, and the other asserting that India already has enough talent and individuals may remain where they wish?
• Critical reasoning — scrapping formal education beyond graduation: Should the system of education after graduation be scrapped, with the pro-argument emphasizing earlier employment and the counter-argument warning that educational depth would suffer?
• Critical reasoning — upper age limit of 65 years for contesting elections: Should there be an upper age cap of 65 for Parliamentary/Legislative Assembly candidates, with one argument claiming people above 65 generally lose dynamism, and the other asserting that increased life span keeps many active till 80?
• Critical reasoning — starting new big industries in Mumbai: Should new large industries be started in Mumbai, weighing the job-creation argument against the counter-concern of worsening pollution?
• Critical reasoning — installing high chimneys in industries: Should industries install high chimneys, with one argument claiming reduced ground-level pollution and the other warning of increased upper-atmosphere pollution?
• Critical reasoning — do we need so many development plans?: Should India have numerous plans for development, with one side asserting that nothing can be achieved without proper planning and the other claiming planning wastes time, money, and energy?
• Critical reasoning — publish articles of only deserving authors: Should publication be restricted to 'deserving' authors only, with one argument citing paper savings and the counter-argument noting the impracticality of defining deserving vs. undeserving clearly?
• Critical reasoning — granting university status to colleges: Should individual colleges in India be given full university status, with one argument claiming better assessment of students by colleges would make degrees more valid, and the other contending that it is utopian to expect colleges to avoid nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees?
• Critical reasoning — special treatment for prestigious people who unknowingly commit crimes: Should prestigious individuals who have unknowingly committed an offence receive special treatment, with one argument asserting their lack of intent and the other upholding the policy that all are equal before the law?
• Arguments evaluation (environmental policy and public cooperation): Can pollution realistically be controlled at the societal level? Assess the strength of the following arguments—(I) Yes: if everyone understands the hazards of pollution and cooperates to eliminate it, control is achievable; (II) No: crowded highways, factories/industries, and an ever-growing population expanding housing are beyond effective control—focusing on practicality, causality, and whether the reasoning is overly absolute.
• Arguments evaluation (phased privatisation of Indian Railways): Should the railways be privatised in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises? Compare the arguments—(I) Yes: privatisation is the only way to create competitiveness and better public services; (II) No: privatisation would threaten national security as multinationals would enter—testing for extremity (“only way”), evidence, and policy realism.
• Arguments evaluation (abolishing internal assessment in colleges): Should internal assessment be abolished? Weigh the arguments—(I) Yes: doing so will reduce the possibility of favouritism; (II) No: teaching faculty will lose control over students—against the criteria of relevance to evaluation quality, sufficiency, and institutional purpose.