Statement and Argument Questions

• Arguments evaluation (demolishing unauthorized city structures): Should all unauthorized structures in the city be demolished? Test the arguments—(I) No: displacement concerns—where will residents of such houses live? (II) Yes: demolition will send a clear deterrent message so people refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings—on humanitarian feasibility, due process, and proportionality.
• Arguments evaluation (cap on the number of Union ministers): Should there be a maximum limit for ministers in the Central Government? Judge—(I) No: the ruling party should be free to decide the number; (II) Yes: cap the number as a percentage of parliamentary seats to avoid unnecessary expenditure—using criteria of public interest, checks on patronage, and fiscal prudence.
• Arguments evaluation (ban on foreign films in India): Should foreign films be banned? Consider—(I) Yes: they portray alien culture that harms our values; (II) No: foreign films are of high artistic standard—judging cultural-impact claims versus artistic merit and policy relevance.
• Arguments evaluation (instalment buying and consumer welfare): Is purchasing goods on instalments profitable for the customer? Evaluate—(I) Yes: the customer pays less; (II) No: paying instalments upsets the family budget—checking factual correctness and over-generalisation.
• Arguments evaluation (autonomy for Doordarshan): Should Doordarshan be given autonomous status? Weigh—(I) Yes: autonomy would enable fair and impartial coverage of important events; (II) No: coverage would be decided by a few who may lack a healthy outlook—testing governance logic and speculative objections.
• Arguments evaluation (priority: adult education vs. compulsory education): Should adult education programmes be given priority over compulsory education? Analyse—(I) No: adult education will also help the success of compulsory education; (II) Yes: priority would help eliminate adult illiteracy—checking internal consistency and relevance to the specific “priority” question.
• Arguments evaluation (establishing new universities in India): Should new universities be opened? Consider the objections—(I) No: India has not yet achieved its literacy targets; (II) No: new universities will create unemployed but highly qualified people—assessing domain relevance, causality, and evidence.
• Critical reasoning — total ban on non-vegetarian food: Should non-vegetarian food be completely prohibited across the country, given the claim that it is expensive and beyond the means of most people, versus the counter-claim that bans are inappropriate in a democratic nation like ours?
• Critical reasoning — trapping wild animals: Should the nation impose a total ban on trapping wildlife, weighing the claim that trappers are earning a lot of money against the counter-claim that hunting or trapping bans do not work effectively?
• Critical reasoning — closing loss-making public sector enterprises (PSEs): Should the Government shut down PSEs that incur losses, balancing the concern about employees losing jobs and security against the argument that in a competitive world only the fittest should survive?
• Critical reasoning — incentives for rural government postings: Should government jobs in rural areas carry additional incentives, considering the claim that incentives are essential to attract personnel versus the assertion that rural areas are already cheaper, healthier, and less complex than cities and therefore need no extra incentives?
• Critical reasoning — cap on the maximum number of candidates in a constituency: Should there be a limit on how many contestants can run for a parliamentary seat, weighing the claim that a cap helps voters make considered choices against the principle that any eligible person should be free to contest in a democracy?
• Critical reasoning — heavy spending on advertisements: Should large expenditures on advertising be justified on the ground that it is an essential accompaniment of a capitalist economy, in contrast to the view that such spending only wastes resources?
• Critical reasoning — should legislators be forced to resign from their professions?: Would requiring all elected legislators to quit their private professions improve governance by freeing more time for national service, or would it deter candidacy so much that hardly anyone contests?
• Critical reasoning — compulsory computer education at secondary level: Should 'computer knowledge' be made a mandatory subject for all secondary school students, countering the view that our priority is bread (basic needs) and we should not copy western models, with the argument that global competitiveness requires equipping children with computing skills?
• Critical reasoning — uniforms for college students: Should Indian colleges introduce student uniforms similar to schools, balancing the claim that uniforms improve campus ambience and ensure decent dress against the claim that college students should not be regimented and should retain freedom to choose their attire?
• Critical reasoning — dialogue with neighbours to reduce cross-border tension: Should India engage neighbouring countries in talks to curb cross-border tension and terrorism, weighing the view that dialogue is the only effective way to reduce violence against the concern that neighbours may be unreliable and continue subversive activities?
• Arguments evaluation (global governance feasibility and risks): Should there be a single world government? Assess the strength of the arguments—(I) Yes: a world government will help eliminate tensions among nations; (II) No: such a government would inevitably be dominated by developed countries—using relevance, extremity of claim, and plausibility as criteria.
• Arguments evaluation (government transfers of clerical staff across cities): Should the routine practice of transferring clerical-cadre employees between government offices in different cities be stopped? Compare the arguments—(I) No: transfers are a standard administrative tool and should continue; (II) Yes: transfers cause high public expenditure and widespread inconvenience relative to benefits—judging necessity, cost–benefit, and policy intent.
• Arguments evaluation (ransom policy for kidnapped political figures): Is paying ransom or agreeing to kidnappers' conditions an appropriate course of action? Assess—(I) Yes: victims must be saved at all cost; (II) No: such concessions encourage further kidnappings—focusing on absolutism vs. deterrence and long-run consequences.