Question 1

Statement & Argument — Should there be repolling where booth-capturing occurred?  Arguments: I. Yes, repolling restores electoral fairness when the process is compromised. II. No, it is a wastage of resources.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Booth-capturing invalidates free and fair elections. The core policy goal is electoral integrity, not cost minimization.Given Data / Assumptions:Booth-capturing distorts voter will and violates law.Repolling can restore a valid mandate in affected booths.Election budgets exist to uphold legitimacy.Concept / Approach:A strong argument references the primary objective of the system. Elections exist to capture the electorate’s true preference; fairness is non-negotiable.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I ties directly to legitimacy and due process. It is relevant, specific, and strong.2) Argument II cites cost. While costs matter, they cannot justify accepting a tainted result; thus II is weak.Verification / Alternative check:Even if repolling imposes expenses, the cost of illegitimate outcomes is higher for democracy.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II does not address the foundational requirement of fair elections.Common Pitfalls:Equating operational frugality with legitimacy preservation.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 2

Statement & Argument — Should computer knowledge be essential for office employment?  Arguments: I. Yes, computers are state-of-the-art devices. II. No, office work is not yet fully computerized.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Hiring prerequisites should be justified by job requirements, not by generic technology admiration or lagging adoption claims.Given Data / Assumptions:Different office roles require different levels of digital literacy.Argument strength depends on role-specific necessity or policy rationale.Neither argument mentions role fit or transitional training.Concept / Approach:A strong argument would say: for roles that routinely use computers, essential knowledge improves productivity and accuracy; for others, essential may be excessive. As framed, I and II are generic and not policy-sound.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I: Calling computers state of the art does not prove necessity for every office job. Weak.2) Argument II: Incomplete adoption is not a reason to avoid capability building, nor does it address role needs. Weak.Verification / Alternative check:If the arguments were role-tied (for example, data entry, accounting), I could become strong. If II argued for phased training rather than exclusion, it might gain strength. As given, both are weak.Final Answer:Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 3

Statement & Argument — Should the Ministry of Defence raise the monthly liquor quota?  Arguments: I. Yes, troops will do anything if promised liquor and leave. II. No, excessive alcohol consumption causes medical harm and dependency.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy toward service personnel must balance morale with health and operational readiness. Arguments using stereotypes or exaggeration are weak.Given Data / Assumptions:Excess alcohol has well-documented health and performance risks.Operational forces require fitness, judgment, and discipline.Motivation factors are multifaceted; reducing them to liquor and leave is reductive.Concept / Approach:Arguments are strong when they reference credible outcomes that the policy should prioritize (health, readiness). They are weak when based on sweeping generalizations.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I: Overgeneralized and disrespectful in tone; not tied to evidence. Weak.2) Argument II: Cites medical and dependency risks relevant to forces. Strong.Verification / Alternative check:Policies often restrict or monitor alcohol to protect health and readiness; this aligns with II.Final Answer:Only Argument II is strong.

Question 4

Statement & Argument — Should the Government bring a strict anti-terror law (e.g., POTO-type)?  Arguments: I. No, such laws endanger constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards. II. Yes, terrorism is a major threat and exist…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Security legislation involves a tradeoff between effective prevention and civil liberties. Both pro and anti views can be strong if they are principled, relevant, and policy-grounded.Given Data / Assumptions:Anti-terror frameworks can expand state powers and impact rights.Escalating threats may reveal gaps in existing law enforcement tools.Strength of an argument depends on relevance to core policy aims: protect life and liberty.Concept / Approach:Argument I focuses on rights safeguards; if well grounded, it is strong. Argument II focuses on security necessity due to insufficiency of existing laws; it is also strong. Because they support opposite decisions yet both are cogent, the correct test option is that either argument is strong.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is strong for highlighting rule of law and rights standards.2) II is strong for highlighting insufficiency against a major threat.Verification / Alternative check:Many exam keys accept the “either” choice when both sides give independent, substantial grounds.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 5

Statement & Argument — Should rent fixation be left entirely to landlords and tenants?  Arguments: I. Yes, it is the sole right of landlords and any intervention violates Article 21. II. No, a free hand can lead to exploitation and miseries of tenan…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Rent control debates weigh contractual freedom against asymmetric power and housing as a basic need. Strong arguments rely on correct constitutional references and realistic market behavior.Given Data / Assumptions:Article 21 protects life and personal liberty; it does not grant a landlord unilateral rent rights.Housing markets may feature bargaining imbalances and can enable exploitation without safeguards.Public policy often balances freedom of contract with anti-exploitation measures.Concept / Approach:Argument I misstates constitutional law and asserts absolute rights, making it weak. Argument II identifies a plausible risk (rent gouging, coercive clauses) that policy may need to address; thus it is strong.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Check legal accuracy: I is flawed in Article 21 usage and overbroad.2) Market reality: II highlights tenant vulnerability, providing a sound policy reason for regulation.Final Answer:Only Argument II is strong.

Question 6

Statement & Argument — Should India adopt two time zones?  Arguments: I. Yes, many developed countries use multiple time zones. II. No, large countries like China use a single time zone.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Time zone policy should be assessed on domestic criteria such as longitudinal spread, energy use, safety, transport scheduling, and administrative practicality. Mere analogies to other countries are insufficient.Given Data / Assumptions:Argument I cites practice elsewhere without connecting to India’s specific needs.Argument II cites China’s single zone, again without policy linkage to India’s context.Strong arguments should refer to measurable domestic outcomes (for example, daylight alignment, accident rates, productivity).Concept / Approach:Appeals to authority or analogy are weak if they do not translate into local benefits or costs. Both arguments lack India-specific reasoning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate I: Merely says others do it; no India-focused rationale. Weak.2) Evaluate II: Merely says China does not; still not India-centric. Weak.Verification / Alternative check:Had either argument referenced sunrise misalignment in the northeast, school or rail timings, or grid load effects, it could be strong. As given, both are weak.Final Answer:Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 7

Statement & Argument — Should a person involved in terrorism at home be deprived of citizenship?  Arguments: I. Yes, terrorism harms national progress and is against the idea of nationality. II. No, terrorism is an illegal act and should be punished…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Citizenship deprivation is an extreme sanction. A strong pro argument must show compelling state interest and deterrence value; a strong contra argument must ground itself in rule of law and proportionality.Given Data / Assumptions:Terrorism severely endangers public safety and national security.Criminal justice systems provide a spectrum of penalties, including life imprisonment.Citizenship stripping can raise due process and statelessness concerns.Concept / Approach:Argument I appeals to national interest and deterrence, which can be a strong ground. Argument II defends due process and proportionality under existing law, which can also be strong. Since they are mutually opposed yet individually cogent, the correct test response is that either argument is strong.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is strong on national security grounds.2) II is strong on legal process and rights grounds.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 8

Statement & Argument — Should education at all levels be offered in vernacular medium?  Arguments: I. Yes, learning in one’s mother tongue enhances performance. II. No, the lack of high-quality books in many vernaculars will harm comprehensive knowl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Medium of instruction choices involve pedagogy and resources. Arguments are strong if they link to learning outcomes or to practical availability of educational material.Given Data / Assumptions:Mother tongue learning can improve comprehension, especially at early stages.For advanced subjects, scarcity of high-quality materials in some languages can impede depth.Concept / Approach:Argument I focuses on cognitive benefits; it is strong. Argument II focuses on supply of materials and teacher capacity; it is also strong. Because they point to competing policy considerations, the test choice is that either argument is strong.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 9

Statement & Argument — Should LPG be allowed as fuel for commercial vehicles?  Arguments: I. No, petroleum agencies cannot meet even domestic LPG demand satisfactorily. II. No, LPG is not adaptable to the engines commonly used in the country.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Fuel policy weighs availability, infrastructure, and compatibility. Strong arguments cite immediate feasibility constraints or proven incompatibilities.Given Data / Assumptions:If domestic LPG supply is already strained, shifting demand to commercial fleets can aggravate shortages.Engine adaptability can be addressed with kits when technically feasible; a blanket incompatibility claim requires proof.Concept / Approach:Argument I addresses a real supply constraint and is therefore strong. Argument II is categorical about incompatibility without evidence; many SI engines can be adapted to LPG with appropriate kits, so as stated it is weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 10

Statement & Argument — Is a 50% hike in school fees and transport charges justified?  Arguments: I. Yes, adding IT subjects requires large infrastructure investments. II. No, it suddenly increases the burden on parents.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Education pricing involves cost recovery and affordability. Both sides can be strong if framed around legitimate considerations.Given Data / Assumptions:Laboratories, hardware, networking, and maintenance for IT can be expensive.Large sudden hikes can exclude students or stress family budgets.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong because it links the hike to a specific cost driver. Argument II is strong because it highlights affordability and equity concerns. Since both are valid but opposing, either argument is strong.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 11

Statement & Argument — Should commercial activity be permitted in residential areas?  Arguments: I. No, it impairs healthy development and living conditions of residents. II. Yes, it contributes to economic development and is a major economic activi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Zoning balances livability against economic vibrancy. Both sides can be strong if they address core planning objectives.Given Data / Assumptions:Residential well-being can be harmed by noise, traffic, and pollution from commercial uses.Mixed-use, when planned, may boost local economies and convenience.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong because it focuses on resident health and livability. Argument II is strong because it references economic benefits. Since both are policy-relevant but in tension, either argument is strong.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 12

Statement & Argument — Should rooftop rainwater harvesting be mandatory for every builder in the city?  Arguments: I. Yes, a 100 sq m roof in Delhi can capture and recharge about 65,000 liters, meeting domestic needs of a family of four for roughly …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Urban water sustainability policies rely on demand management and local recharge. Quantified benefits and crisis indicators both support mandates.Given Data / Assumptions:Significant rooftop harvesting yields are possible in many Indian cities.Groundwater depletion is a serious, documented issue.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong as it provides quantification of benefit. Argument II is strong as it shows urgency. As both are independently compelling and in the same direction, either argument is strong is the accepted test option.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 13

Statement & Argument — Should Information Technology be compulsory at SSC level?  Arguments: I. No, it imitates western models. II. Yes, this is the era of information technology and the country is progressing rapidly in it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Curriculum design must serve future skills. Cultural imitation alone is not a policy criterion.Given Data / Assumptions:IT literacy is foundational for higher education and jobs.National progress in IT strengthens the case for early exposure.Concept / Approach:Argument I is a cultural appeal lacking educational rationale. Argument II ties the mandate to readiness and national competence; it is strong.Final Answer:Only Argument II is strong.

Question 14

Statement & Argument — Should literacy be the minimum criterion for bus drivers in metropolitan cities?  Arguments: I. Yes, illiterate drivers are less likely to understand traffic rules and signals. II. No, driving requires only mechanical skill.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public transport safety depends on comprehension of written signs, procedures, and documentation, not just vehicle control.Given Data / Assumptions:Urban traffic involves complex signage and rules.Drivers interact with written schedules, penalties, fitness forms, and emergency instructions.Concept / Approach:Argument I is directly relevant and strong. Argument II reduces driving to mechanics and ignores compliance requirements; it is weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 15

Statement & Argument — Should bullock carts be banned on busy city roads?  Arguments: I. Yes, they are slow and worsen congestion for fast vehicles. II. No, they are cheap and environment friendly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Urban mobility policy balances throughput and sustainability. Both sides can present strong considerations.Given Data / Assumptions:On high-speed corridors, very slow vehicles can raise accident risk and delay.Bullock carts provide low-cost, low-emission movement for certain goods.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong on safety and efficiency grounds. Argument II is strong on affordability and environment grounds. Because they conflict but are individually cogent, either argument is strong.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 16

Statement & Argument — After an Enron-like disaster, should there be global audit norms?  Arguments: I. Yes, global norms will ensure such disasters do not recur. II. No, global norms let developed countries pursue vested interests.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Audit reform is complex. Strong arguments must avoid overclaims and provide credible mechanisms.Given Data / Assumptions:Global norms can improve consistency but cannot guarantee prevention of every failure.Claiming all global norms serve vested interests is speculative without specifics.Concept / Approach:Argument I overstates by promising that no disaster will happen again, which is unrealistic. Argument II alleges motives without evidence or a clear causal mechanism. Both as framed are weak.Verification / Alternative check:If I had said global norms reduce risk by improving comparability and enforcement, it could be strong. If II cited concrete governance capture risks with examples, it could be strong. As given, both fail.Final Answer:Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 17

Statement: Should banks be allowed to offer different interest rates in India? Arguments: I. Yes, this is the only way to eventually lower interest rates in the country. II. No, this will discourage the customers and they might be compelled to switc…

Accepted Answer

there is no relation between statement and argument so we cannot relate each other. if neither I nor II is strong

Question 18

Statement: Is the WTO regime unfair to India? Arguments: I. Yes, the WTO bureaucracy has been openly supporting the agenda of large capital form the developed countries, and increasingly does not even pay lip service to the genuine demands of develo…

Accepted Answer

I is strong because being swept away by money is, unfair. II is strong because it shows why WTO can't help India in spite of being fair.

Question 19

Statement: Is using Gandhi (father of the Indian nation) as a brand an insult to him? Arguments: I. No, if we name a road, park, street, stadium etc using the name of Gandhi, why using his name as a brand will be an insult to him? II. Yes, it is aga…

Accepted Answer

II is strong because it tells why the move is illegal. I is weak because the given analogy is not appropriate. Nor is it convincing.

Question 20

Statement: Should there be punishment in Indian for those who have more than two child? Arguments: I. Yes. It is very much desirable because there is no other way to control population growth, which is hampering the development of the country on eve…

Accepted Answer

I is weak because of the words ''no other way''. II is weak because it ignores the internal factors and circumstances of the country.

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter