Critical reasoning – Should railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all employees? Statement: “Should the railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Employees have the right to travel free. II. Yes. This will help railways provide better facilities.
Verbal Reasoning
Statement and Argument
Difficulty: Easy
Choose an option
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The question evaluates which argument logically supports or opposes ending employee free passes. A strong argument must be relevant, non-extreme, and supported by reasonable assumptions, not mere assertions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Policy under debate: immediate stoppage of free passes to all employees.
- Argument I asserts a “right” to travel free without basis.
- Argument II asserts better facilities will result from savings, with no analysis.
Concept / Approach:Strong arguments provide clear causal links or principles. A claimed “right” must stem from statute, contract, or equity. A claimed benefit (better facilities) must be plausibly tied to freed resources and their efficient reinvestment.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Without reference to any rule or contract, calling free travel a “right” is an assertion, not an argument. Benefits may be perks, not fundamental rights. Hence, weak.Argument II: While saving money could help facilities, it assumes immediate, full, and efficient redirection of funds, ignoring morale and HR implications. It is speculative and not sufficient on its own. Hence, weak.Verification / Alternative check:
A strong pro-change argument would show data on costs and facility improvements; a strong anti-change argument would cite contractual obligations or essential duty-related travel. Neither is provided.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options claiming I or II strong, either, or both attribute undue strength to weak, unsubstantiated claims.Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a benefit with a right; assuming savings automatically become service improvements.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong