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?

Verbal Reasoning Statement and Argument Difficulty: Medium
Choose an option
  • A
    Neither I nor II is strong
  • B
    Only argument I is strong
  • C
    Only argument II is strong
  • D
    Both I and II are strong
  • E
    Either I or II is strong

Answer

Correct Answer: Neither I nor II is strong

Explanation

Given data

  • Statement: Impose an upper age limit of 65 for contesting elections?
  • Argument I (Yes): People above 65 generally lose dynamism/will power.
  • Argument II (No): Life span has increased; many remain active to 80.

Concept/Approach (avoid sweeping generalisations)Both arguments rely on broad generalisations about age without evidence or consideration of individual differences, role demands, or safeguards.

Step 1: Assess Argument IAssumes loss of dynamism is general and sufficient to bar candidacy—an overreach lacking objective criteria.

Step 2: Assess Argument IICites increased longevity but conflates life span with uniform functional capacity; also overgeneralised.

Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.

Discussion & Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion