Question 1

Statement–Argument (Public Enterprise Reform): Statement: Should Indian Railways be corporatised? Arguments: I) Yes, autonomy can enable quicker decisions, clearer accountability, and operational modernisation. II) No, corporatisation is futile unle…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Corporatisation debates focus on autonomy, governance, and service quality. A strong argument should evaluate how the proposed change affects decision-making, accountability, and outcomes—rather than shift the goalpost.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Directly links corporatisation to autonomy and agility, plausible drivers of performance improvement.Argument II: Says it is “futile unless” appointment practices change—this critiques a different, though related, reform track and does not show corporatisation itself is bad or unhelpful.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong because it evaluates the proposal on its intended merits: governance reforms leading to faster decisions and clearer accountability. Argument II is comparatively weak—it conditions success on another reform but does not negate the value of corporatisation; both reforms can proceed in tandem.Step-by-Step Solution:Check relevance: I is directly about corporatisation outcomes; II is about appointments generally.Assess strength: I offers a mechanism (autonomy ⇒ agility ⇒ performance).Conclusion: Only I is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Even without perfect HR reforms, corporatisation can still rationalise budgets, KPIs, and customer-focus, yielding gains.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II does not counter the proposal; “either/neither” misstate the relative strengths.Common Pitfalls:Rejecting a reform because other complementary reforms are pending.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 2

Statement–Argument (Law & Social Belief): Statement: Should there be a law specifically against superstition in India? Arguments: I) Yes, superstition is belief in magical influences and practices based on them. II) No, superstition is recognised by…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The question asks whether a dedicated anti-superstition law is warranted. Strong arguments should weigh public harm, enforceability, rights, and proportionality—not definitions or appeals to tradition.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Only defines superstition; it does not show why a law is needed or workable.Argument II: Cites tradition and social rootedness; tradition alone does not determine legality or policy desirability.Concept / Approach:Argument strength depends on policy relevance. I is weak because a definition is not a justification for criminalisation or regulation. II is weak because “we have always done it” is not a policy criterion; harmful practices may be regulated despite tradition, while harmless beliefs may be left alone.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Does it address harm, scope, or enforcement? No—mere definition lacks policy substance.Test II: Does tradition ensure net benefit or compatibility with rights? No—appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.Hence, neither I nor II qualifies as a strong argument.Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” would cite demonstrable harms (fraud, violence) and gaps in existing laws; a strong “No” would show redundancy with existing penal and consumer-protection provisions. Neither happens here.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Labeling either statement as strong misapplies the strength criteria.Common Pitfalls:Confusing definition or tradition with justification.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 3

Statement–Argument (Criminal Penalty & Deterrence): Statement: Should death penalty be imposed on manufacturers of spurious (fake/adulterated) drugs? Arguments: I) Yes, profiteering that causes mass deaths amounts to mass murder and merits death pen…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy on the death penalty involves competing penal philosophies—retribution/deterrence versus reform/rehabilitation—plus proportionality and miscarriages-of-justice risk. In Statement–Argument format, both sides can present strong, principle-based positions.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Views lethal spurious drugs as akin to mass murder, appealing to proportional retribution and deterrence.Argument II: Prioritises reform and proportionality, warning against capital punishment's finality and its tension with rehabilitative aims.Concept / Approach:Strength rests on relevance and principled grounding. Argument I is strong: it ties the gravity of the harm (many deaths) to maximal punishment as deterrent and moral desert. Argument II is strong: it appeals to prevailing modern penology that emphasises reform/proportionality and questions irreversible sanctions.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Is deterrence/retribution a recognised aim of punishment? Yes—hence relevant and strong.Test II: Is reform/proportionality a recognised aim limiting severity? Yes—also relevant and strong.Therefore, either I or II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Different jurisdictions balance these aims differently; both are defensible policy lenses, confirming independent strength.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one understates the legitimacy of the other penal philosophy; “neither” ignores well-established doctrines.Common Pitfalls:Assuming only one penal aim is valid; neglecting proportionality and wrongful-conviction risks.Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 4

Statement–Argument (Political Finance): Statement: Should companies’ donations to political parties be banned in India? Arguments: I) Yes, such donations were banned earlier (1969–1985). II) No, donations are not new; they exist since 1956. Choose t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Political finance debates hinge on transparency, undue influence, level playing field, and citizen trust. Strong arguments should address these criteria, not just cite historical precedent.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Appeals to an earlier ban (1969–1985) as reason to ban now.Argument II: Appeals to long-standing practice (since 1956) as reason not to ban.Concept / Approach:Precedent alone—“we did it before” or “we have always done it”—does not evaluate merit. A strong argument would discuss corruption risks, disclosure standards, compliance costs, or democratic integrity. Both I and II lack substantive evaluation and therefore are weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Does a past ban prove today’s desirability? No—context and outcomes matter; mere history is insufficient.Test II: Does longevity guarantee desirability? No—long-standing practices may still be harmful.Hence neither argument is strong.Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” would show influence-buying risks and propose clean alternatives (public funding, caps, disclosures); a strong “No” would argue for regulated transparency over bans. Neither occurs.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Attributing strength to either confuses precedent with policy analysis.Common Pitfalls:Appeal to tradition/precedent fallacy.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 5

Statement–Argument (Uniform Civil Code): Statement: Should India adopt a uniform civil code (UCC) applicable to all communities? Arguments: I) Yes, many personal laws on marriage, inheritance, guardianship, divorce, maintenance, and property are unj…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A Statement–Argument problem asks which argument is “strong,” i.e., specific, relevant, and policy-informative. The prompt concerns a uniform civil code (UCC) and whether adopting it would remedy injustices embedded in personal laws, particularly for women.Given Data / Assumptions:Proposal: Introduce a UCC that replaces community-specific personal law rules.Argument I: UCC addresses demonstrable injustices in areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship, especially gender inequities.Argument II: A UCC would undermine cultural diversity and fragment society.Concept / Approach:In this genre, a strong argument must directly evaluate outcomes of the proposal—rights, fairness, feasibility, and public interest. Rights-based repair of systemic inequity is a substantive criterion. Vague caution about culture, without showing how the UCC necessarily harms social cohesion or why reforms cannot respect diversity while ensuring equality, is weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Identify the core policy target: remedying unjust outcomes consistently across citizens.Check Argument I: It links the UCC to the correction of specific, persistent inequities—high relevance and concrete benefit.Check Argument II: It rests largely on an unspecified fear that uniformity erodes culture; it does not show that equality and cultural practices cannot coexist or that safeguards cannot be drafted.Verification / Alternative check:A strong “No” would need to show better alternatives (e.g., codifying equality within each personal law with enforceable safeguards) or prove that a UCC structurally creates net harm. Argument II does not do this, so it is weak.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing II alone or “either/neither” misjudges strength: I is precise and outcome-focused; II is speculative.Common Pitfalls:Equating cultural pluralism with legal inequality; assuming reform must erase diversity rather than constrain injustice.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 6

Statement–Argument (Aviation Safety): Statement: Should all MiG-21 fighter aircraft be banned due to frequent accidents? Arguments: I) Yes, the aircraft has become a “flying coffin.” II) No, most accidents are due to human error. Choose the option i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Decisions about grounding a fleet should rely on causal analysis (airworthiness, maintenance, pilot training, operations) rather than emotive labels. A strong argument must explain whether banning addresses the root cause of accidents.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Uses a pejorative tag (“flying coffin”) but offers no causal mechanism.Argument II: Attributes accidents mainly to human error—training, procedures, or supervision—implying solutions other than outright ban.Concept / Approach:For strength, relevance to causation is key. If the problem is primarily human factors, interventions should target training, SOPs, simulators, maintenance, and upgrades. An epithet without analysis is weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Does it diagnose cause or remedy? No; it is rhetoric.Test II: If human error dominates, focus on pilot proficiency, instrumentation, and oversight—not blanket ban—thus II is policy-relevant and stronger.Verification / Alternative check:If evidence showed design/airframe unfitness, a ban could be strong; but the stated premise emphasises human error, supporting II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” or “neither” dilutes the causal relevance; I alone is not strong.Common Pitfalls:Confusing emotive language with evidence; assuming a single lever (ban) solves multifactor safety issues.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 7

Statement–Argument (FDI Policy): Statement: Should MNCs be allowed to start 100%-owned subsidiaries in India? Arguments: I) Yes, neighbouring countries have permitted it. II) No, India’s entrepreneurial ecosystem needs protection. Choose the option …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy on 100% FDI must weigh competition, technology transfer, market access, local capability building, and strategic autonomy. A strong argument references these effects, not mere imitation of neighbours.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Appeals to what neighbours do—irrelevant unless tied to outcomes for India.Argument II: Cites protection for domestic entrepreneurship—relevant to market structure, MSME survival, and innovation incentives.Concept / Approach:Argument strength turns on policy consequences. I is weak as an appeal to authority/tradition elsewhere. II addresses domestic development and competitive balance, thus policy-relevant.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Lacks causal link between neighbours’ choices and India’s welfare.Evaluate II: Points to safeguarding local enterprise capacity—directly germane to FDI policy.Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” would cite consumer surplus, investment spillovers, and safeguards; here, only II meets strength criteria.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Picking I or “either/neither” misreads that only II gives a substantive policy ground.Common Pitfalls:Copying policies without context; ignoring domestic capability effects.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 8

Statement–Argument (Mobiles on Campus): Statement: Should students be banned from carrying mobile phones on college campuses? Arguments: I) No, a mobile phone is essential and one needs it all day. II) Yes, mobile phones distract students from studi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Campus device policy is about learning outcomes, disruption, and safety. Strong arguments should tie the rule to academic focus or workable alternatives (time/place restrictions) rather than vague generalities.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Asserts “essential all day,” but does not address classroom impacts or consider moderated policies.Argument II: Directly links phones to distraction—notifications, social media, and split attention—affecting learning.Concept / Approach:Relevance to the institution’s core objective (learning) makes II strong. I is generic; essentiality outside class can be accommodated by regulated use without undermining the academic environment.Step-by-Step Solution:Map the proposal to effects: Distraction harms learning productivity; II addresses this.I lacks specificity; “essential all day” ignores targeted restrictions (e.g., allowed outside classrooms).Verification / Alternative check:Common practice is not blanket bans but structured restrictions—this still validates II’s core reasoning that unmanaged use distracts.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II makes a direct academic case; I is not strong; “either/neither” misclassifies.Common Pitfalls:False dilemma: assuming only total ban or total freedom.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 9

Statement–Argument (Election Synchronisation): Statement: Should Parliamentary and State Assembly elections be clubbed together (held simultaneously)? Arguments: I) Yes, it will reduce the overall cost of conducting elections. II) No, because many v…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Simultaneous elections are evaluated on cost, logistics, governance continuity, and voter comprehension. Strong arguments must link to tangible effects, not stereotypes about voter capacity.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Claims cost reduction—fewer deployments, shared logistics, single preparation cycle.Argument II: Says illiterate voters cannot handle two ballots, hence democracy is jeopardised.Concept / Approach:Argument I is relevant and plausible—cost is a standard policy metric. Argument II is weak: literacy does not preclude casting two ballots; ballots/symbols and assistance protocols already support voter comprehension. It also asserts a dire outcome without mechanism.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Direct cost nexus—valid and pragmatic.Evaluate II: Overgeneralises voter limits and ignores mitigations; not a strong ground.Verification / Alternative check:Even critics of synchronisation usually cite federalism and campaign timing, not voter literacy; II misses the core concerns.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either/neither” misreads: only I has a concrete policy linkage here.Common Pitfalls:Assuming literacy equals voting competence; ignoring ballot design aids.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 10

Statement–Argument (Censorship & Art): Statement: Should films based on ghosts (supernatural/horror) be banned? Arguments: I) No, filmmaking is an art form and creative freedom should be preserved. II) Yes, such films increase superstition. Choose t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Censorship questions weigh harm prevention against freedom of expression. A strong argument here must show concrete harm that cannot be mitigated by ratings/disclaimers—or defend artistic liberty.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Protects creative freedom—directly relevant to the ban proposal.Argument II: Claims superstition rises but provides no necessity or proportionality analysis for a ban.Concept / Approach:Freedom of expression is a recognised policy value; restrictions require specific, demonstrable harms and proportional remedies. Mere correlation with “superstition” is too vague to justify prohibition, especially with less-restrictive alternatives (certification, advisories).Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: It aligns with default liberty assumptions in cultural production—strong.Assess II: Lacks evidence, scope, and consideration of milder tools—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Where films risk copycat harm or incitement, tailored restrictions may apply; superstition per se does not meet that threshold.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I stands as a strong, principle-based reason; “either/neither” misclassifies.Common Pitfalls:Treating discomfort with genre as grounds for bans.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 11

Statement–Argument (Rail Ticketing on Trains): Statement: Railways should introduce bus-like conductors to sell tickets on running trains. Arguments: I) Yes, it would significantly reduce ticketless travel. II) No, it complicates procedures and rais…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Operational reforms must weigh compliance benefits against cost/complexity. This is classic cost-benefit reasoning; both sides can be strong if they speak to measurable outcomes.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Links on-board conductors to higher compliance and reduced fare evasion.Argument II: Warns of staffing costs, supervision, and workflow complexity relative to TTE/ETM models.Concept / Approach:A strong “Yes” cites enforcement and revenue protection; a strong “No” cites costs and process burden. Both are relevant and decision-oriented.Step-by-Step Solution:I addresses the benefit side—less evasion ⇒ more revenue.II addresses the cost/feasibility side—additional payroll/logistics ⇒ higher OPEX.Because each independently targets a key decision dimension, either can be strong depending on context.Verification / Alternative check:Pilots with handheld ETMs and targeted checks are common middle paths; the presence of viable alternatives reinforces that both concerns are substantive.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one ignores the other's material relevance; “neither” denies obvious trade-offs.Common Pitfalls:Framing choices as all-or-nothing; ignoring hybrid models (selective conductors, random checks).Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 12

Statement–Argument (Mergers & Precedent): Statement: Should Company X be allowed to merge with Company Y? Arguments: I) Yes, the Hindustan Lever–Lipton merger was a success. II) No, mergers can damage morale in the company that becomes subordinate (…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:M&A evaluation is fact-specific (synergies, antitrust, culture fit). Citing a past success elsewhere is a weak generalisation. Employee morale and integration risks are central to post-merger performance, making that line of reasoning stronger.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Uses an external precedent without linking similarities (markets, assets, culture).Argument II: Points to a common merger risk—morale loss in the acquired/subordinate entity—affecting productivity and retention.Concept / Approach:Strength requires decision-relevant analysis. Unqualified precedent (I) is weak; integration risk (II) is substantial and outcome-relevant.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Does external success predict this case? Not without comparability—weak.Test II: Identifies a typical failure mode with operational consequences—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Many mergers fail due to cultural misfit and morale issues; highlighting this is materially relevant.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” overrates I; “neither” underrates II.Common Pitfalls:Assuming one success story is a universal template.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 13

Statement–Argument (Media & Social Harmony): Statement: Should communal violence be shown on television? Arguments: I) Yes, confronting the “devil within” helps society exorcise it. II) No, telecast of such content can inflame tensions in real life.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Broadcast policy must weigh public interest against risk of incitement. A strong argument identifies concrete social impacts and necessity standards for restrictions.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Offers a philosophical thesis (catharsis) with no operational guardrails.Argument II: Points to real-world risk of escalation, imitation, and communal polarisation due to live/graphic coverage.Concept / Approach:In content policy, harm prevention is a recognised basis for limits (with proportional safeguards). Argument II is specific about risk; Argument I is abstract and does not show that broadcast is necessary for reform.Step-by-Step Solution:Test I: Lacks mechanism and ignores alternative educational formats.Test II: Identifies foreseeable harm; aligns with time-place-manner restrictions.Verification / Alternative check:Delayed, contextualised reporting or de-sensitised coverage can inform without inflaming—supporting II’s caution.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either/neither” misclassifies relative strength; II is the robust policy argument.Common Pitfalls:Assuming visibility alone heals division; ignoring copycat/retaliation dynamics.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 14

Statement–Argument (Campus Politics): Statement: Should political activity on campus be restrained? Arguments: I) Yes, excessive politics vitiates the academic atmosphere. II) No, restraint impinges on students’ freedom. Choose the option indicating…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Universities must balance free expression/association with an academic mission. Both sides can present strong, principle-grounded arguments: educational focus versus civil liberties.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Asserts that high political intensity disrupts learning—discipline, classes, and safety.Argument II: Warns that restraining politics curtails students’ rights to speech/association.Concept / Approach:Both arguments map to recognised institutional values. I is strong where disruption is material; II is strong where freedoms are core and can coexist with study through reasonable time-place-manner rules.Step-by-Step Solution:I focuses on academic outcomes and campus order—relevant and concrete.II focuses on rights and democratic learning—also relevant and concrete.Since each stands on an independent principle, either can be strong depending on context.Verification / Alternative check:Most campuses adopt calibrated rules (venue/time limits) to reconcile both objectives, evidencing dual legitimacy.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one side ignores the legitimate counter-principle; “neither” denies obvious stakes.Common Pitfalls:All-or-nothing framing; overlooking moderate regulation that respects speech and study.Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 15

Statement–Argument (Compulsory Voting): Statement: Should voting be compulsory for all adults? Arguments: I) Yes, outcomes would be more representative if everyone votes. II) No, compulsion removes the citizen’s right to abstain. Choose the option i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Compulsory voting trades off representativeness against negative liberty (the right not to choose). Both sides can advance strong normative and practical points.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Universal turnout reduces sampling bias from differential participation, plausibly improving representativeness.Argument II: Coercion undermines freedom to abstain as political expression (e.g., principled non-choice).Concept / Approach:Both arguments are policy-relevant and principle-grounded: I on outcome quality, II on liberty. Thus both are strong.Step-by-Step Solution:I: More voters ⇒ closer to full electorate’s preferences.II: Liberty includes abstention; coercion raises rights and enforcement issues.Verification / Alternative check:Some systems balance by encouraging turnout via nudges rather than compulsion—showing both principles matter.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only one side is not uniquely strong; “neither” ignores valid considerations on both sides.Common Pitfalls:Equating abstention with apathy; ignoring that non-participation can be expressive.Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 16

Statement–Argument (Energy Subsidy Policy): Statement: Should subsidy on domestic LPG cylinders be stopped? Arguments: I) Yes, subsidy encourages misuse by housewives who over-cook food. II) No, in a welfare-oriented country no subsidy can be stoppe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Subsidy reforms should be argued on targeting accuracy, fiscal burden, externalities (health/clean fuel adoption), and leakage—not stereotypes or absolutes.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I: Attributes “misuse” to housewives and “over-cooking”—an unfounded, biased generalisation lacking policy metrics.Argument II: Claims no subsidy can ever be stopped in a welfare state—an absolute assertion ignoring dynamic policy needs.Concept / Approach:Neither argument meets strength standards. A strong “Yes” would show better targeting via DBT/income caps or alternative support. A strong “No” would link to health benefits (clean fuel uptake), equity for low-income households, or transitional design. These are absent.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Stereotype plus no evidence; fails relevance/rigour tests.Evaluate II: Absolute claim contradicts routine subsidy rationalisation; lacks cost-benefit reasoning.Verification / Alternative check:Targeting and phased rationalisation are common middle paths—neither argument acknowledges such design choices.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing any single argument or “either” would reward weak reasoning; both are inadequate.Common Pitfalls:Using stereotypes to infer misuse; treating “welfare” as immunity from reform.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 17

Statement & Argument — Should roadside hoardings be banned?  Arguments: I. Yes, they distract drivers and disturb traffic flow. II. No, banning them would result in loss of advertising revenue.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Statement–Argument questions test whether an argument is relevant, specific, and logically strong in relation to the given statement. The statement asks if roadside hoardings should be banned. We must judge each argument on merit, not on personal opinion.Given Data / Assumptions:Public roads are high-risk environments where safety and smooth traffic flow are primary objectives.Hoardings can introduce visual clutter and distraction to drivers and pedestrians.Advertising revenue, while useful, is not the primary criterion for road design and safety policy.Concept / Approach:In this topic, a strong argument is one that is directly connected to the decision criteria that authorities should use. For road policies, core criteria include safety, congestion reduction, and public welfare. Revenue is a secondary consideration unless tied to public interest in a compelling way.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate Argument I: It claims hoardings disturb traffic. This is specific, relevant to safety, and aligns with core policy criteria. Hence, it is strong.2) Evaluate Argument II: It appeals to revenue loss. This is tangential and does not address safety or welfare. As framed, it is weak.Verification / Alternative check:Suppose authorities run a safety-first policy. Argument I clearly supports such policy. Argument II would be persuasive only if it showed that revenue funds safety measures directly; the argument does not do so.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II alone is weak. Both strong or either strong is incorrect because II lacks core relevance.Common Pitfalls:Overvaluing revenue without tying it to safety or public benefit.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 18

Statement & Argument — Should Party X be voted to power?  Arguments: I. Yes, it is the only party capable of bringing stability. II. No, it cannot rule the country properly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Political judgment questions require arguments that are objective, specific, and evidence oriented. The statement asks whether Party X should be voted to power. We test each argument for specificity, exclusivity claims, and logical sufficiency.Given Data / Assumptions:No data about stability metrics or comparison with other parties is provided.No operational definition of ruling properly is provided.Vague or sweeping assertions without substantiation are typically weak.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should present a concrete, policy-linked reason. An exclusivity claim like “only party” demands strong evidence or a unique capability. A negative claim like “cannot rule properly” must specify reasons (competence, track record, policy failures) to be persuasive.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I claims uniqueness in delivering stability but provides no basis or indicator. Without comparative evidence or defined stability metrics, it is an assertion, hence weak.2) Argument II asserts incapacity without any reference to parameters, examples, or evidence. As phrased, it is also weak.Verification / Alternative check:If I cited verifiable stability outcomes uniquely attributable to Party X, it might become strong. If II listed demonstrated failures or risks, it could be strong. As given, both lack substance.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Neither argument independently meets the bar for strength; hence options asserting one or either is strong are incorrect.Common Pitfalls:Accepting broad political slogans as strong arguments without evidence.Final Answer:Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 19

Statement & Argument — Should newspaper articles be written in simple language?  Arguments: I. Yes, newspapers target the general reader. II. No, newspapers will lose respect if language is simplified.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We evaluate language policy in news writing. A strong argument will refer to audience comprehension, accessibility, and the communicative purpose of journalism.Given Data / Assumptions:Newspapers address a mass audience with varied education levels.Clarity, accuracy, and accessibility are core journalism values.Respect for a publication is typically driven by credibility and quality, not complexity for its own sake.Concept / Approach:An argument is strong if it ties directly to the mission of newspapers: to inform the public effectively. Simplicity aids comprehension without necessarily reducing rigor or depth.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I: Aligns with audience-centric communication. It is specific and relevant, hence strong.2) Argument II: Predicts loss of respect due to simple language without evidence. Respect correlates better with accuracy, fairness, and depth than with unnecessary verbosity. Hence, II is weak as stated.Verification / Alternative check:High-quality outlets often pair clear prose with deep reporting. Simplicity can coexist with sophistication.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II alone is weak; both strong or either strong is not correct since II lacks a solid basis.Common Pitfalls:Equating complexity of language with intellectual merit.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 20

Statement & Argument — Should the public cooperate with bomb disposal squads?  Arguments: I. Yes, cooperation is necessary to rescue lives and ensure safety. II. No, their activities are a nuisance to daily life.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Emergency response scenarios prioritize life and safety. We must judge arguments by their relevance to that priority and proportionality of concerns.Given Data / Assumptions:Bomb disposal operations address immediate, significant threats to life and property.Public cooperation can enable quick cordons, evacuations, and information flow.Temporary inconvenience is secondary when compared with risk mitigation.Concept / Approach:A strong argument supports the primary policy objective. In emergencies, saving lives and preventing harm are paramount.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I is specific, safety linked, and proportionate. Strong.2) Argument II cites inconvenience, which is minor relative to life safety. As framed, it is weak.Verification / Alternative check:Standard emergency doctrines emphasize public cooperation for rapid neutralization of threats.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II does not override safety rationale; thus only I holds.Common Pitfalls:Overstating inconvenience in emergency contexts.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter