Question 1

Statement: Should a person found sending racist messages on internet be prosecuted? Arguments: I. Yes, sending racist email message is a part of overall phenomenon of ''hate-speech'' on the internet which is meant for civil communication. II. No, ou…

Accepted Answer

I is obviously strong. II is weak because freedom of speech does not mean sending racist messages.

Question 2

Statement: Should basic operators be allowed to offer wireless telephony services in India? Arguments: I. Yes; enhanced competition will bring down the prices for the consumer. II. No; this will make it cumbersome for the regulators.

Accepted Answer

I goes into reason. Hence I is strong . II is weak because it is not advocating whether despite being cumbersome for the regulators it is beneficial for the people or not.

Question 3

Statement: Should religious slaughter of animals be banned in India? Arguments: I. Yes,. this is an act of brutality and against humanity; it should not be done in the name of God. II. No, India is a secular country.

Accepted Answer

I is strong because it goes into reason and keeps humanity above all. II is also strong because being a secular country India needs to respect the freedom of all religions.

Question 4

Statement: Should India attack Pakistan? Arguments: I. Yes, we have defeated them three times; now it needs another defeat. II. No, if India succeeds in the fourth war, we will have no opponent left a fifth war.

Accepted Answer

Both arguments are ridiculous. Neither of them says about the positive or negative aspect which compels India to attack or restrain itself to take such harsh initiatives.

Question 5

Statement: Should politicians be made to declare their educational qualifications? Arguments: I. Yes, to develop a global perspective and represent India on the world map it is the need of the hour because a sound educational background guarantees s…

Accepted Answer

I goes into reason. Hence is strong. II is based on wrong assumption.

Question 6

Statement: Are beauty pageants an insult to a woman's intelligence? Arguments: I. Yes, beauty pageants give more emphasis on physical beauty. II. No, if anyone thinks so, he or she is not aware of the positive aspects of beauty pageants.

Accepted Answer

I is not strong because ''more emphasis'' on one aspect can't be interpreted as an insult to the other aspect. II does not carry any substance.

Question 7

Statement: Should all the electricity state boards be privatised in India? Arguments: I. No, this will increase the grievances of the people. II. Yes, it will check the growing menace of power theft which has resulted in annual pilferage of a huge a…

Accepted Answer

II says about the need and outcome of the initiative. Hence, II is strong. But I does not say how the grievances of the people will enhance.

Question 8

Statement: should school invite IIT students to give practical tips on science subjects? Arguments: I. Yes, IIT students can be a boon to the careers of science students by giving them proper guidance that they certainly require at the stage of thei…

Accepted Answer

I is strong. A right tip at the right time can reap huge dividends. II is not strong. One does not assume that going to school students will become their primary role.

Question 9

Statement: Should all eve-teasing offences be made non-bailable? Arguments: I. No. This will create disappointment among eve-teasers. II. Yes. This is the need of the hour.

Accepted Answer

Both I and II do not present any rational facts. Hence both are weak arguments.

Question 10

Statement: Should there be an amendment in the acts related to check-bouncing? Arguments: I. Yes, Existing laws are not sufficient in curbing the incidents related to check-bouncing. II. Yes. This will lessen the miseries of entrepreneurs due to inc…

Accepted Answer

I is weak because ''amendment'' itself implies that the existing laws are not sufficient. There is no addition to what has been said in the statement. II is strong because the miseries of the entrepreneurs are certainly not desirable.

Question 11

Statement–Argument — Should Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) be allowed in India’s print media? Arguments: I. Yes. Foreign investment will introduce healthy competition and diffuse advanced technologies and practices that are currently concentrated i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question weighs liberalisation benefits against media pluralism risks in the print sector. FDI can catalyse technology transfer, capital infusion, and professional standards. Conversely, consolidation pressure could crowd out small and regional voices that sustain linguistic diversity and local accountability. Given Data / Assumptions: India’s print media includes national and regional outlets with uneven access to capital and technology. FDI typically brings process, tech, and managerial upgrades but may intensify competition. Policy goals include innovation and pluralism. Concept / Approach: In statement–argument items, a strong argument is relevant, logically persuasive, and policy-grounded. When two opposing arguments both present legitimate, policy-relevant considerations, the correct evaluation can be “either I or II is strong”. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I (pro-FDI): Highlights efficiency, competition, and technology diffusion—core aims of liberalisation. This is policy-relevant and logically sound.2) Argument II (caution): Emphasises the risk of market dominance affecting regional plurality. Media plurality and diversity are recognised public-interest objectives. This is also policy-relevant and reasoned.3) Because both sides identify legitimate yet competing objectives, each can be considered strong on its own merits, leading to the “either I or II” choice. Verification / Alternative check: Many countries balance FDI benefits with caps, cross-ownership limits, or safeguards for local media—evidence that both efficiency and plurality are valid policy concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” ignores plurality risks; “Only II” ignores innovation benefits; “Both” implies simultaneous acceptance without recognising their mutual exclusivity in a yes/no policy; “Neither” dismisses two solid considerations. Common Pitfalls: Treating media like a commodity market and overlooking the democratic value of plurality; or, conversely, ignoring consumer and technology gains from investment. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 12

Statement–Argument — Should corporal punishment be banned in schools? Arguments: I. Yes. Poor performance reflects systemic/teaching gaps; values-based guidance and supportive pedagogy are preferable to physical punishment. II. No. An adamant child …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Educational policy increasingly rejects physical punishment, favouring evidence-based methods (positive reinforcement, counselling, differentiated instruction) to improve learning and behaviour. Given Data / Assumptions: Schools aim to maximise learning outcomes and protect child welfare. Physical punishment risks harm and can undermine trust and intrinsic motivation. Non-violent discipline strategies exist and can be effective. Concept / Approach: Evaluate whether each argument is relevant, reasonable, and aligned with educational objectives and rights. Strong arguments should not rest on unsubstantiated necessity claims. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I connects underperformance to pedagogical issues and recommends constructive alternatives. It is aligned with modern pedagogy and child-rights norms—strong.2) Argument II asserts corporal punishment as necessary for “adamant” children, a claim that is unsupported and contradicts safer, proven approaches. It also ignores potential harm—weak. Verification / Alternative check: Behavioural science supports non-violent, consistent, and supportive methods for classroom management. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge the relative evidentiary strength and ethical alignment of the arguments. Common Pitfalls: Confusing short-term compliance with long-term learning; ignoring rights-based obligations. Final Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Question 13

Statement–Argument — Should pension schemes in government services be abolished? Arguments: I. Yes. Abolishing pensions will shrink applicant numbers, making it easier for common people to get government jobs. II. No. Pensions provide essential fina…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pensions or post-retirement benefits serve as social insurance for public employees, stabilising income after service and helping retain a capable workforce. Given Data / Assumptions: Pension schemes exist to protect retirees from income shocks. Recruitment quality and fairness are separate concerns from retirement security. Policy evaluation should consider objectives and consequences. Concept / Approach: Assess whether each argument advances the policy goal. A strong argument should be relevant to pension’s purpose (retirement security), not merely to applicant counts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I links abolition to reduced applicants—an unintended and undesirable metric. It neither addresses retirement welfare nor workforce quality—weak.2) Argument II correctly states pensions’ core purpose: financial support in old age. It is directly relevant and normatively aligned—strong. Verification / Alternative check: Many systems evolve from defined-benefit to defined-contribution structures, but the rationale remains retirement security. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/Either/Both/Neither” mischaracterise relevance and objectives. Common Pitfalls: Treating pensions as recruitment throttles rather than social insurance. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 14

Statement–Argument — Should restrictions on blood donation by rickshaw-pullers and prisoners be removed? Arguments: I. Yes. Current restrictions deny many people the chance to donate blood, even to their own relatives during emergencies, reducing li…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Donor eligibility rules balance supply adequacy with transfusion safety. Some occupations or custodial statuses may correlate with risk factors, but categorical bans can be overly broad. Given Data / Assumptions: Blood safety requires screening (history, tests) and risk-based deferrals. Emergency needs highlight the importance of sufficient donor pools. Fairness suggests criteria should be medically grounded, not stigma-based. Concept / Approach: A strong argument can arise from either side: one stresses access (supply), the other stresses safety (risk management). Where both considerations are legitimate, “either I or II is strong” is appropriate. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I: Removing blanket restrictions increases potential donors, potentially saving lives—relevant and reasonable.2) Argument II: If medical risk is higher, targeted restrictions may be warranted for safety—also reasonable when evidence-based.3) Because both speak to valid goals (supply vs. safety), each can be strong depending on evidence/design; hence “either”. Verification / Alternative check: Modern policy often replaces blanket bans with individual risk assessments and testing—integrating both concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/Only II” ignore the other valid goal; “Both” implies simultaneous acceptance without resolving practical conflict; “Neither” dismisses two legitimate concerns. Common Pitfalls: Conflating social bias with medical risk; ignoring that good screening can reconcile aims. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 15

Statement–Argument — Should TV channels be allowed to telecast soft-porn films? Arguments: I. Yes. It will satisfy youthful impulses and thereby reduce offences against women. II. No. It conflicts with social values and may harm children who use TV …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Broadcast standards regulate adult content to protect minors and uphold community norms, while allowing adult choice via time bands, ratings, and access controls. Given Data / Assumptions: Television is a shared, easily accessible medium for households with children. Causality claims linking adult telecasts to reductions in offences require strong evidence. Policy tools include watershed timings, content ratings, and parental locks. Concept / Approach: Assess if the argument is evidence-based and aligned with core aims (child protection, community standards). Unsupported social-engineering claims are weak. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I posits crime reduction via “satiation”. This is speculative and ethically dubious; there is no clear, reliable causal mechanism demonstrated here—weak.2) Argument II stresses harm to minors and social norms—recognised grounds in broadcast policy worldwide. It supports proportionate restrictions (e.g., adult-only windows, strong filters)—strong. Verification / Alternative check: Common regulatory practice focuses on protecting minors while permitting adult content under strict conditions—not open telecast. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/Either/Both/Neither” mis-evaluate the evidentiary basis and policy priorities. Common Pitfalls: Confusing adult VOD access controls with broadcast TV norms; assuming exposure reduces crime. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 16

Statement–Argument — Should government hospitals charge user fees from government employees who pay income tax? Arguments: I. Yes. User fees can ease fiscal pressure and the revenue can fund better services for those in need. II. No. Charging tax-pa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Health financing can mix general taxation with user fees, exemptions, and insurance. Equity, efficiency, and fiscal sustainability must be balanced. Given Data / Assumptions: Government employees are taxpayers; many non-employees are also taxpayers. User fees can generate earmarked funds but may create access barriers. Targeting (exemptions/concessions) is possible. Concept / Approach: Both fiscal logic (I) and fairness/affordability concerns (II) are policy-relevant. Their strength depends on design (exemptions, income tiers). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I argues for revenue and reallocation to the needy—relevant and potentially effective if implemented with equity safeguards.2) II claims injustice since taxes are already paid; if user fees duplicate burdens and deter care, the fairness concern is real—also relevant.3) Because both concerns can be compelling depending on context and design, “either I or II is strong” fits. Verification / Alternative check: Many systems waive fees for vulnerable groups while charging modest amounts to others, reflecting both arguments. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/Only II” ignore the opposing valid consideration; “Both” implies joint acceptance without resolving trade-offs; “Neither” dismisses relevant points. Common Pitfalls: Assuming user fees are either universally good or bad; neglecting exemption design. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 17

Statement–Argument — Should the habit of classroom absenteeism be checked in educational institutions? Arguments: I. Yes. Otherwise the institute’s image in society will suffer. II. No. Checking absenteeism encroaches on individual liberty.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Attendance policies should serve learning outcomes and duty-of-care, not reputational optics or absolute claims about liberty in institutional settings. Given Data / Assumptions: Institutions set reasonable rules to meet educational goals. Student liberty is balanced with curricular and safety requirements. Effective arguments should address learning or welfare directly. Concept / Approach: Evaluate whether each argument is relevant and sufficient. Reputation alone (I) is not a sound educational rationale; absolute liberty (II) ignores legitimate institutional interests. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Focuses on image rather than learning or welfare—weak.2) II: Treats any attendance control as encroachment, overlooking reasonable academic requirements—weak.3) Since both fail to address core educational grounds, “neither” is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Sound policies cite pedagogy (interaction, labs) and safety, not image or absolute liberty. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They assign undue strength to weak rationales. Common Pitfalls: Arguing from reputation or absolutist freedom without educational basis. Final Answer: if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 18

Statement–Argument — Should children be completely prevented from using the Internet? Arguments: I. No. The Internet is an educational medium that blends learning with engagement. II. Yes. Pornographic and harmful sites strongly affect children; sur…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Child online safety policy balances access to educational resources with protections against harmful content, relying on supervision, filters, and literacy rather than absolute bans. Given Data / Assumptions: Internet provides extensive curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities. Harmful content exists but can be mitigated via controls and guidance. “Completely prevent” is an extreme measure. Concept / Approach: Strong arguments are proportionate and recognise practical safeguards. Overbroad prohibitions that deny significant benefits are typically weak. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Emphasises educational value—clear, relevant, and widely evidenced—strong.2) II: Though concerns are real, “complete prevention” is disproportionate. Appropriate response is supervision, age-gating, and literacy, not total bans—weak. Verification / Alternative check: Common frameworks promote parental controls, safe-search, and digital citizenship rather than absolute prohibition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge proportionality and the educational case. Common Pitfalls: Equating risk existence with justification for total bans. Final Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Question 19

Statement–Argument — Should people be banned from providing services to more than one firm/organisation? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce unemployment to some extent by distributing work. II. No. Such a ban would frustrate skilled professionals and…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Many sectors rely on freelancers and multi-engagement professionals. Regulating secondary employment must consider labour rights, competition, and productivity. Given Data / Assumptions: Unemployment is structural; bans may not create qualified workers or demand. Multi-employment can raise utilisation of scarce skills. Conflicts of interest can be managed via contracts rather than bans. Concept / Approach: Argument strength depends on realistic causal links and alignment with labour-market efficiency. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I assumes a ban will redistribute jobs; it ignores matching, productivity, and demand. Weak causal logic—weak.2) II highlights negative impacts on skilled labour flexibility and morale, a recognised concern—strong. Verification / Alternative check: Standard practice uses non-compete, confidentiality, or hour caps where necessary, not blanket prohibitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They overstate I or understate II. Common Pitfalls: Assuming job “sharing” via bans increases total employment. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 20

Statement–Argument — Should people be allowed to carry traditional arms during long train journeys? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce dacoity and chain-snatching on trains. II. No. Allowing arms will inconvenience passengers and worsen law-and-order…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Passenger safety on trains depends on trained security personnel, surveillance, and protocols—not civilian weapon carrying, which can escalate conflicts and accidental harm. Given Data / Assumptions: Trains are dense public spaces with varied passengers. Weapons increase escalation risk and complicate policing. Security can be improved via patrols, alarms, and enforcement. Concept / Approach: Assess whether each argument provides credible, proportionate risk mitigation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I assumes civilian weapons deter crime; in confined transport, this may raise overall risk and lacks reliable enforcement logic—weak.2) II points to practical safety concerns and law-and-order management—strong. Verification / Alternative check: Transport security policy typically restricts weapons, favouring trained policing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They misjudge proportionality and operational realities. Common Pitfalls: Assuming deterrence outweighs escalation risks in public transit. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions