Question 1

Statement & Argument — Do scientists believe in religion?  Arguments: I. Yes, practicing science does not inherently obstruct personal faith. II. No, religion and science do not go together.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement asks a universal yes/no about scientists’ belief in religion. In Statement–Argument items, strong arguments must be precise, qualified, and evidence-relevant. Overgeneralizations about entire professions or all religions typically weaken arguments.Given Data / Assumptions:Scientists are a diverse group with varied personal beliefs.“Religion” spans many traditions and interpretations.No specific institutional or doctrinal conflict is provided.Concept / Approach:We test whether each argument convincingly supports a universal claim. A robust argument should either provide a principled incompatibility (e.g., methodological naturalism vs specific dogma as practiced in a setting) or a clear compatibility framework with conditions. Blanket assertions are weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Claims science does not obstruct faith. This is a broad assertion without conditions (e.g., when interpretations conflict with evidence in professional contexts). It is too general; weak.Argument II: “Religion and science do not go together” is also overly broad; many scientists are religious, many religious views accept science. Again, weak.Verification / Alternative check:If I had specified domains (methodological naturalism in research vs personal metaphysics) with boundaries, it could be stronger. If II had identified irreconcilable doctrinal claims directly conflicting with scientific method, it might be stronger. As stated, both fail the specificity test.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Declaring either as strong would overvalue blanket statements.Common Pitfalls:Arguing from stereotypes about scientists or religion instead of precise claims.Final Answer:Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 2

Statement & Argument — Should strikes in the field of education be banned?  Arguments: I. Yes, strikes violate professional ethics toward students and society. II. Yes, strikes adversely affect students’ learning and academic calendars.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Education serves a public mission. Arguments are strong if they connect to obligations of care and measurable student outcomes. Here, both arguments defend a ban and must be assessed for relevance and sufficiency.Given Data / Assumptions:Educators bear fiduciary duties to learners.Strikes can cancel classes, delay examinations, and disrupt progression.Concept / Approach:Ethics (professional duty) and impact (student harm) are independent, policy-relevant strands. If each strand stands on its own, both arguments are strong together.Step-by-Step Solution:I (Ethics): Professions entrusted with minors and public funds are held to continuity of service; withdrawing service harms dependents. Strong.II (Impact): Empirical harm—lost instruction time, preparation gaps—directly supports a ban. Strong.Verification / Alternative check:Some may argue for limited collective action with safeguards. That does not nullify the strength of I and II as stated.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” understates that both are independently strong.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring student externalities when assessing labor actions in essential services.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong.

Question 3

Statement & Argument — Should subsidy on higher education be reduced as soon as possible?  Arguments: I. No; without subsidy, higher education will go beyond the reach of many. II. Yes; primary education is more important for a largely illiterate po…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public funding faces trade-offs. A “Yes/No” policy question can have strong opposing arguments if each stands on a legitimate principle—equity/access versus prioritization of foundational literacy.Given Data / Assumptions:Subsidies lower the private cost of higher education and expand access.Budgets are finite; prioritization might favor primary schooling where social returns are high.Concept / Approach:Argument I stresses equity and human capital formation at higher tiers; Argument II stresses opportunity cost and foundational returns. Both are policy-relevant.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Removing subsidies prices out poorer students, reducing mobility—strong.II: Redirecting funds to primary education addresses illiteracy and yields broad gains—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Many countries blend both aims (targeted higher-ed aid + strong primary funding). The coexistence of valid but opposing reasons is exactly why the key is “either.”Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 4

Statement & Argument — Would dividing states into smaller districts be beneficial?  Arguments: I. Yes; smaller districts allow tighter administration and better local grip on issues. II. No; this would unnecessarily increase administrative expenditu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Redistricting trades administrative proximity against fixed costs. Both sides can be strong when they point to core governance criteria: responsiveness versus efficiency.Given Data / Assumptions:Smaller units can improve supervision and service delivery.Creating new units adds overhead (offices, staff, logistics).Concept / Approach:A strong “Yes” argument shows improved outcomes; a strong “No” argument highlights waste or duplication. Each presented argument fits these lines.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Cites administrative grip and integration—strong.II: Cites cost escalations—also strong.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 5

Statement & Argument — Should there be an entrance test for admission to graduation in Delhi University?  Arguments: I. Yes; an entrance test filters candidates so meritorious students gain admission. II. No; most applicants will not get admission.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Admission mechanisms are justified if they fairly allocate scarce seats by merit or suitable criteria. Strong arguments should link the mechanism to purpose, not to inevitable scarcity outcomes.Given Data / Assumptions:Seats are limited; some selection mechanism is required.Merit screening is a standard objective for competitive universities.Concept / Approach:Argument I ties an entrance test to achieving merit-based selection (relevance). Argument II merely laments that many will be rejected—this is a consequence of limited seats, not a reason against a fair filter.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Mechanism-objective alignment—strong.II: Non-sequitur; rejection occurs with or without an entrance test. Weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 6

Statement & Argument — Should sex education be part of the school syllabus?  Arguments: I. Yes; appropriate education reduces taboo and supports healthy, informed choices. II. No; it would increase wrongdoing because students are not mature.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Curriculum decisions should consider learning outcomes, health, and age-appropriate pedagogy. Arguments gain strength when they cite plausible benefits and weaken when they rely on fear appeals without mechanism.Given Data / Assumptions:Age-appropriate sex education can reduce misinformation.Taboo reduction encourages responsible discussion and help-seeking.Concept / Approach:Argument I links the policy to reduced stigma and improved knowledge—core educational aims. Argument II predicts increased wrongdoing without explaining how accurate information creates harm; this is speculative and weak.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Relevant to student welfare—strong.II: Causal claim without support—weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 7

Statement & Argument — Should using a mobile phone while driving be banned?  Arguments: I. Yes; mobile use while driving frequently causes accidents. II. No; banning would create inconvenience for mobile users.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Road-safety policy prioritizes reduction of crashes and fatalities. A strong argument should address safety outcomes, not user convenience.Given Data / Assumptions:Distraction impairs reaction time and situational awareness.Hands-free exceptions or alternatives (pulling over) can mitigate inconvenience.Concept / Approach:Argument I directly targets the core policy metric—accident reduction—making it strong. Argument II elevates convenience, which is secondary and manageable by alternative behaviors, so it is weak.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Safety relevance—strong.II: Convenience over safety—weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 8

Statement & Argument — Should commercial vehicles older than 10 years be banned on the road?  Arguments: I. Yes; older commercial vehicles typically pollute more and should be retired. II. No; such a ban would cause major financial losses to owners.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Transport policy weighs public health against private costs. Strong arguments align with societal externalities (pollution, health burden), especially where cleaner alternatives exist.Given Data / Assumptions:Older fleets generally have higher emissions.Public health costs from pollution are substantial.Concept / Approach:Argument I appeals to environmental externalities—a core regulatory objective—making it strong. Argument II focuses on private loss, which can be mitigated by phased timelines or incentives and does not override the public interest; thus, as stated, weak.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Public health relevance—strong.II: Private hardship without policy solution—weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 9

Statement & Argument — Should there be a jumbo-size ministry in the Government?  Arguments: I. No; a very large council of ministers inflates public expenditure and administrative overhead. II. Yes; the number and diversity of portfolios require man…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This Statement–Argument item asks whether a “jumbo-size” ministry is desirable. A strong argument should present a policy-relevant reason that can independently justify a “Yes” or “No,” such as fiscal prudence or functional adequacy. Both given arguments are evaluated for relevance, sufficiency, and general applicability.Given Data / Assumptions:Public administration incurs costs (salaries, offices, logistics) that scale with the number of ministers.Workload and specialization across portfolios can motivate larger teams for effective oversight.No constitutional cap or specific numerical benchmark is provided in the stem.Concept / Approach:An argument is strong if it appeals to a legitimate governance objective. Controlling expenditure is a valid objective (Argument I). Ensuring adequate ministerial coverage for numerous portfolios is also a valid objective (Argument II). Because each can stand alone as a reasonable policy ground—albeit pulling in opposite directions—either could be accepted as strong depending on priorities.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I (Cost control): Larger cabinets increase recurrent spending and coordination complexity—policy-relevant and strong.Assess II (Functional need): Many portfolios may require dedicated leadership to avoid overload—also policy-relevant and strong.Verification / Alternative check:A balanced approach might set rational size norms or merge allied portfolios. That possibility does not invalidate either argument’s core logic.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” or “Only II” would dismiss an independently valid counter-argument. “Neither” ignores clear relevance of both.Common Pitfalls:Assuming a fixed “right size” without context; ignoring trade-offs between efficiency and coverage.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 10

Statement & Argument — Should professional education packages be emphasized more than traditional (general) education?  Arguments: I. Yes; professional education has direct, higher productivity value for industries and employability. II. No; giving …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy question weighs emphasis on professional (job-oriented) education against broader, traditional streams. A strong argument must connect to societal outcomes—productivity, employability, innovation—using general, reasonable assumptions. Weak arguments rely on speculative harms without mechanism.Given Data / Assumptions:Professional programs (engineering, medicine, management, IT, etc.) often align directly with industry needs.Traditional education (humanities, pure sciences, social sciences) underpins critical thinking and long-run innovation.The stem asks about emphasis, not exclusion.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it cites productivity and industry linkage—clear, policy-relevant benefits. Argument II is weak: it predicts a “tough existence” for other disciplines but does not explain why calibrated emphasis (not elimination) would necessarily endanger them; resource allocation can be balanced.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Direct pipeline to jobs and applied R&D—strong relevance.Evaluate II: Slippery slope; lacks a causal mechanism and ignores policy design—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Many systems fund both: robust liberal education plus targeted professional tracks. That coexistence further undermines II’s inevitability claim.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” would over-credit II. “Neither” ignores I’s solid grounding.Common Pitfalls:Framing emphasis as zero-sum instead of portfolio optimization.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 11

Statement & Argument — Should building of big dams be stopped immediately?  Arguments: I. Yes; big dams can induce notable seismographic effects and associated risks. II. Yes; they require large-scale eviction and displacement of people from their n…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item asks for an immediate halt to big-dam construction, assessing two “Yes” arguments. Strong arguments should point to significant risk or social cost that, standing alone, could justify a moratorium. Here, both seismic risk and mass displacement are independently weighty considerations.Given Data / Assumptions:Large reservoirs can create reservoir-induced seismicity in some geologies.Big projects often entail resettlement, with livelihood, cultural, and ecological impacts.No countervailing mitigation or compensation scheme is specified in the stem.Concept / Approach:Argument I cites a safety risk (public-protection objective); Argument II cites social justice and human-cost considerations. Each is a legitimate policy ground to justify stopping or pausing projects. Because either concern—if critical enough—can independently warrant a halt, the correct evaluation is that either argument is strong.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: Safety risks related to seismicity are material—strong.Assess II: Large-scale displacement is a serious harm—strong.Verification / Alternative check:In practice, governments may opt for stringent EIA, mitigation, and resettlement rather than a blanket stop. However, the question tests whether each reason can justify “stop now,” which they can.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” or “Only II” artificially excludes one strong rationale. “Neither” ignores both substantial concerns.Common Pitfalls:Treating development–displacement trade-offs as trivial; overlooking geologic variability.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 12

Statement & Argument — Should MNCs that do not set up plants locally and only market products at low prices be delicensed?  Arguments: I. Yes; such models generate little local employment and do not significantly contribute to domestic capacity. II.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy dilemma pits domestic industrialization and jobs against consumer welfare from competitive pricing. An argument is strong if it appeals to a legitimate macroeconomic objective.Given Data / Assumptions:MNCs selling without local production create fewer direct jobs and limited supply-chain spillovers.Lower prices and variety increase consumer surplus and can discipline domestic producers to improve.Concept / Approach:Argument I emphasizes employment and local capacity—valid industrial-policy goals. Argument II emphasizes consumer welfare—core competition-policy concern. Each can independently justify a “Yes” or “No” policy stance depending on priorities.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Employment/capacity rationale — strong.II: Consumer-surplus rationale — strong.Verification / Alternative check:Hybrid policies (local content rules, phased manufacturing programs) can balance both aims; that does not erase the individual strength of I or II.Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 13

Statement & Argument — Should reservation of seats for ladies in buses and trains be lifted immediately?  Arguments: I. No; women are physiologically more vulnerable in transit and need reserved space for safety and comfort. II. Yes; reservations ex…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question asks about immediately removing reserved seats for women. Strong arguments must address passenger safety, equity, and operational realities. A “Yes”/“No” is assessed for whether the reason offered is substantial and policy-relevant.Given Data / Assumptions:Public transport can involve crowding and harassment risks for women.Reservations are a practical mechanism to improve access, safety, and comfort.The stem specifies immediate lifting, with no transitional safeguards.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong because it grounds the policy in safety and dignity—central aims of public transport policy. Argument II focuses on symbolism (“sex bias”) rather than outcomes; it fails to show that removing reservations would maintain or improve safety and access.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Addresses concrete risks and the protective function of reserved seats—strong.Evaluate II: Normative claim about bias without operational alternative—weak.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” or “Both” would incorrectly validate II. “Only II” ignores safety outcomes.Common Pitfalls:Prioritizing abstract parity over lived safety concerns.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 14

Statement & Argument — Should legal professionals in India have the right to go on strike?  Arguments: I. No; chronic strikes have already produced massive case backlogs and harm clients’ access to justice. II. Yes; if lawyers’ dignity, independence…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Justice delivery is an essential service. Strong arguments should weigh public interest (timely adjudication) against labor rights, with attention to proportionality and alternatives.Given Data / Assumptions:Large backlogs already strain the system; client interests are directly affected by lawyer cessations.Professional codes and court rulings in many jurisdictions discourage or bar strikes by advocates.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it points to measurable harm to litigants and the system’s core objective. Argument II is weak as framed: it asserts strike as the “only meaningful weapon,” ignoring internal institutional remedies (bar councils, courts, dialogue) and calibrated protest forms that do not paralyze courts.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Direct, outcome-focused reasoning—strong.II: Overstates necessity and lacks proportionality—weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 15

Statement & Argument — Should a rapist be sentenced to life imprisonment in India?  Arguments: I. Yes; incidences of rape and crimes against women are high, and current punishments are insufficiently deterrent. II. Yes; the victim’s suffering can pe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The prompt asks whether life imprisonment is warranted for rape. Strong arguments may appeal to deterrence, proportionality to harm, and social protection. Both given arguments support “Yes,” though through different lenses: public safety/deterrence and proportionality to enduring harm.Given Data / Assumptions:Severe crimes can justify severe penalties to protect society and deter offenders.Rape inflicts long-term physical, psychological, and social harm on survivors.The stem queries principle, not specific statutes.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it links penalty severity to deterrence and perceived insufficiency of existing sanctions. Argument II is also strong: it appeals to proportionality—lifelong harm may justify a lifelong sentence. While debates exist about deterrence efficacy, both are standard, policy-relevant justifications.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Deterrence and public protection—strong.II: Proportionality to enduring harm—strong.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” understates that both lines of reasoning are independently persuasive. “Only I/II” discards a valid counterpart.Common Pitfalls:Conflating sentencing policy with evidentiary standards; ignoring victim rehabilitation needs alongside punishment.Final Answer:Both Arguments I and II are strong.

Question 16

Statement & Argument — Should proliferation of credit cards be restricted in the country?  Arguments: I. Yes; easy access to revolving credit encourages overspending and indebtedness among consumers. II. No; credit cards merely make the holder “high…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Consumer-credit expansion has benefits (convenience, cashless economy) and risks (debt traps). Strong arguments should relate to financial-stability or consumer-protection outcomes, not superficial attributes.Given Data / Assumptions:Credit cards provide revolving credit, minimum-due traps, and high interest if misused.Financial literacy levels vary; aggressive marketing can drive imprudent borrowing.Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it references behavioral and structural risks that justify considering restrictions or safeguards (KYC, credit limits, disclosure). Argument II is weak: “being high-tech” is irrelevant to the policy question and offers no welfare-related reason to avoid restrictions.Step-by-Step Solution:I: Identifies concrete harm pathways—strong.II: Non-sequitur; technology image is not a policy criterion—weak.Final Answer:Only Argument I is strong.

Question 17

Statement–Argument — Should an Anti-Piracy Bill be introduced in Parliament? Arguments: I. Yes. It will help the film industry fight piracy more effectively, strengthening the industry financially. II. No. Existing provisions such as copyright law a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Anti-piracy policy evaluates whether additional legislative instruments are necessary to deter infringement, improve enforcement, and safeguard creative industries. The statement asks if a dedicated Anti-Piracy Bill should be brought to Parliament, and presents a pro-legislation argument (I) and a status-quo argument (II).Given Data / Assumptions:Piracy harms revenue streams of film producers, distributors, and allied sectors.Existing copyright statutes and procedures may have enforcement gaps (speed, penalties, jurisdiction, platform coverage).Argument II presumes current laws are fully adequate.Concept / Approach:A strong argument is specific, pertinent, and policy-grade. It should connect the proposal to material outcomes like deterrence, compliance, or institutional effectiveness. An argument that simply asserts sufficiency without addressing known enforcement gaps is weaker.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I is strong because targeted legislation can tighten definitions, close digital/platform loopholes, streamline takedowns, strengthen inter-agency coordination, and calibrate penalties—materially aiding enforcement and industry viability.2) Argument II is weak: claiming “we already have laws” does not show those laws are adequate in practice or that they address new piracy modalities (P2P, streaming mirrors, CAM leaks, CDN abuse).3) Therefore, only I is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Jurisdictions often supplement baseline copyright laws with focused anti-piracy measures (site-blocking protocols, fast-track injunctions, repeat-offender regimes), indicating practical need beyond generic provisions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II” ignores enforcement reality; “either” overstates II; “neither” undervalues clear benefits; “both” misclassifies II as strong.Common Pitfalls:Equating legal existence with effective deterrence; overlooking digital enforcement mechanisms.Final Answer:If only argument I is strong.

Question 18

Statement–Argument — Should Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be entitled to dual citizenship? Arguments: I. Yes. It will bolster emotional, cultural, and economic ties between NRIs and India. II. No. The move will not be fruitful for all NRIs because man…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Dual citizenship policy weighs diaspora engagement (capital, skills, networks) against administrative/legal complexity. The question is whether NRIs should be entitled to dual citizenship.Given Data / Assumptions:India could enact provisions (or closer analogues) to deepen NRIs’ connection.Some destination countries restrict dual nationality.The test is the strength and relevance of each argument to the underlying policy.Concept / Approach:Argument I cites a primary policy goal—stronger bonds and potential economic benefits—squarely pertinent to the objective of dual citizenship. Argument II claims uneven benefit due to foreign legal limits, but that does not invalidate offering it to those for whom it is legally possible.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is strong: closer affiliation can raise remittances, investment, tourism, philanthropy, and knowledge transfer.2) II is weak: feasibility varying by country does not negate value for eligible NRIs; policy can be extended where reciprocally permitted without harming others.3) Hence, only I is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Many nations deploy tailored diaspora schemes despite heterogenous host-country rules; partial eligibility is common in public policy.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II” misreads a logistical constraint as a decisive policy refutation; “either/neither/both” misclassify strengths.Common Pitfalls:Assuming a policy must benefit 100% of the target group to be worthwhile.Final Answer:If only argument I is strong.

Question 19

Statement–Argument — Should reputed private driver-training schools be authorised to issue driving licences? Arguments: I. Yes. This will enable more people to obtain licences. II. No. This will increase congestion and cause traffic jams.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The core objective of a licensing system is road safety and competence verification, not simply increasing licence counts or modulating congestion.Given Data / Assumptions:Proposal: empower reputed private training schools to issue licences.I focuses on quantity of licences, not safety/standards.II attributes congestion to licensing authority rather than urban planning/vehicle growth/traffic management.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments must address the true policy goal (competency, impartial testing, integrity). Quantity (I) is not an appropriate success metric; congestion (II) is largely orthogonal to who issues licences.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assess I: More licences without guaranteeing impartial evaluation risks lowering standards; it does not justify changing the issuing authority. Weak.2) Assess II: Traffic congestion is a function of infrastructure, enforcement, modal split—weakly connected to licensing issuer. Weak.3) Therefore, neither argument is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Where private entities are involved, separation of training and testing is standard to avoid conflicts; this nuance is absent in I/II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option selecting I or II as strong misidentifies the policy objective.Common Pitfalls:Confusing access/volume with safety outcomes; misattributing congestion causes.Final Answer:If neither I nor II is strong.

Question 20

Statement–Argument — Should a trouble-torn state (e.g., Jammu & Kashmir) release separatist leaders without any conditions? Arguments: I. Yes. A goodwill gesture could help calm tensions and promote peace. II. No. Unconditional release may aggravate…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Conflict-management policy balances de-escalation gestures against security and signaling risks. The question is about unconditional release.Given Data / Assumptions:I: goodwill gesture can help peace (generic claim).II: lack of demonstrated flexibility raises risk of renewed mobilisation or hardline messaging post-release.No mention of monitoring, dialogue framework, or conditionality.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments must be proximate to likely outcomes. A blanket goodwill claim (I) lacks mechanism and conditions; II identifies a concrete risk tied to actors’ current posture, directly relevant to the unconditional aspect.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate I: Absent conditions or a structured process, a bare goodwill release may not improve incentives. Weak.2) Evaluate II: Points to escalation risk if positions remain inflexible; this is a salient, policy-grade concern. Strong.3) Therefore, only II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Common practice is conditional release within a peace-talks framework (dialogue timelines, verifiable commitments), which underscores II’s relevance to “unconditional.”Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/either/both” overstate a generic hope without structure; “neither” ignores material risk.Common Pitfalls:Conflating goodwill with effective conflict resolution absent credible commitments.Final Answer:If only argument II is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter