Question 1

Arguments evaluation (ban on religion): Should religion be banned altogether? Evaluate—(I) Yes: religion develops fanaticism; (II) No: religion binds people together—checking relevance, overgeneralisation, and societal function.

Accepted Answer

Given dataQuestion: Whether to ban religion, a broad social institution.Argument I: Generalises religion as fostering fanaticism—an overreach.Argument II: Recognises its cohesive/social-binding roles.Concept/ApproachA strong argument avoids blanket condemnation and focuses on core societal roles. Banning a foundational institution requires far more than citing possible pathologies.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is an overgeneralisation—fanaticism is neither universal nor inherent; weak for a blanket ban.Step 2: II points to integrative functions (community, identity, norms); relevant and stronger.Verification/AlternativePolicy typically regulates harmful practices while protecting freedom of belief—aligns with II rather than I.Common pitfallsConfusing regulation of excesses with prohibition of the institution itself.Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.

Question 2

Arguments evaluation (India as a permanent member of the UN's Security Council): Should India become a permanent UNSC member? Weigh—(I) Yes: India loves peace and amity; (II) No: first solve internal problems like poverty and malnutrition—on relevan…

Accepted Answer

Given dataDecision: India's eligibility for a permanent UNSC seat.Argument I: Cites peaceful disposition—insufficient as a criterion.Argument II: Diverts to domestic poverty/malnutrition—irrelevant to UNSC representation.Concept/ApproachStrong arguments must address the relevant criteria (global role, capacity, representation). Neither argument does so.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is necessary at best but not sufficient; membership depends on broader factors.Step 2: II is a red herring—domestic challenges do not preclude international representation.Verification/AlternativeTypical criteria include population, economy, contributions to peacekeeping, diplomatic weight—not invoked here.Common pitfallsUsing emotive but irrelevant considerations for institutional membership.Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.

Question 3

Arguments evaluation (ban on fashionable dresses): Should fashionable clothing be banned? Consider—(I) Yes: fashions change frequently, increasing cloth consumption; (II) No: fashionable clothes are a form of self-expression and thus a fundamental r…

Accepted Answer

Given dataProposal: Blanket ban on fashionable dress.Argument I: Points to increased cloth consumption as a reason for prohibition.Argument II: Frames fashion as personal expression tied to liberty.Concept/ApproachBans require compelling harm and necessity; consumption variability alone does not justify prohibition. Liberty-based arguments are stronger absent concrete harm.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I lacks a direct, severe harm nexus; weak.Step 2: II asserts a core freedom (self-expression) conflicting with an overbroad ban; comparatively strong.Verification/AlternativeReasonable regulation (decency, uniforms) can coexist with fashion; total bans are disproportionate.Common pitfallsUsing resource-use fluctuations to justify sweeping prohibitions.Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.

Question 4

Arguments evaluation (dissolving the United Nations Organisation): Should an organisation like the UNO be dissolved? Examine—(I) Yes: with the Cold War over, such bodies have no role; (II) No: without such organisations, a world war may ensue—testin…

Accepted Answer

Given dataQuestion: Whether to dissolve the UNO.Argument I: Claims redundancy post–Cold War—ignores peacekeeping, development, health, climate, and law.Argument II: Warns that absence of such fora could raise conflict risks—plausible deterrence/mediation role.Concept/ApproachA strong argument recognises the multi-faceted mandate of global institutions. Narrow historical framing is weak; acknowledging conflict-mitigation functions is stronger.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is reductive and therefore weak.Step 2: II highlights the stabilising role of international institutions—more compelling.Verification/AlternativeBeyond geopolitics, global public goods (pandemic response, refugee protection) require coordinating bodies.Common pitfallsEquating one historical function with the entire raison d'être of an institution.Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.

Question 5

Arguments evaluation (role of interview in selection): Should the interview stage be eliminated from selection processes? Assess—(I) Yes: interviews are highly subjective in assessment; (II) No: interviews are the only instrument to judge motives an…

Accepted Answer

Given dataIssue: Whether to remove interviews from selection.Argument I: Points to subjectivity and potential bias—valid concern.Argument II: Claims interviews are the only tool for motives/personality—an extreme claim.Concept/ApproachA strong argument is realistic and avoids exclusivity. Bias is a known issue; however, personality can also be assessed via structured interviews, psychometrics, simulations—so II is weak.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I identifies a genuine flaw—subjectivity—hence strong.Step 2: II's 'only instrument' assertion is incorrect—hence weak.Verification/AlternativeModern selection uses multi-method assessments, undermining II's exclusivity claim.Common pitfallsConfusing 'useful' with 'only'—overstating necessity.Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.

Question 6

Arguments evaluation (compulsory family planning in India): Should family planning be made compulsory? Consider—(I) Yes: given miserable conditions, there is no other go; (II) No: India's religious diversity includes faiths where family planning is …

Accepted Answer

Given dataProposal: Make family planning compulsory nationwide.Argument I: Uses an absolute ('no other go') without addressing rights, implementation, or alternatives (education, incentives).Argument II: Opposes on religious-tenet grounds—invokes diversity but does not weigh public-health considerations or constitutional frameworks.Concept/ApproachStrong arguments must avoid absolutism and address constitutional, ethical, and practical dimensions. Both arguments are incomplete and over-generalised.Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is sweeping and ignores feasible non-coercive pathways—weak.Step 2: II appeals to religious objections without engaging public interest and rights balancing—also weak.Verification/AlternativeEffective population policies stress voluntary adoption, education, and access rather than compulsion.Common pitfallsFraming complex public policy as all-or-nothing.Using singular grounds (religion) to resolve multi-factor issues.Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.

Question 7

Critical reasoning — executive pay caps in multinationals: Should there be a statutory ceiling on the salaries of top executives working for multinational companies in our country, considering the supporting view that otherwise it may trigger unheal…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Impose a pay ceiling on top multinational executives?Argument I (Yes): Without a ceiling, unhealthy competition would arise, harming domestic industry.Argument II (No): In a liberalised economy, pay caps are counter-productive; as growth picks up, disparities shrink.Concept/Approach (relevance, sufficiency, and policy fit)A strong argument must directly address the policy's purpose, rely on relevant causal reasoning, and avoid vague fears or slogans. It should be compatible with the stated economic framework.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I links executive pay to 'unhealthy competition' and domestic industry weakness; however, executive remuneration does not by itself determine market outcomes (productivity, costs, technology, regulation). The causal chain is weak and speculative.2) Argument II recognises the operating paradigm (liberalisation) where price/compensation controls usually distort incentives and talent flows. It also posits a plausible dynamic: disparities often compress as markets deepen and human capital scales.Verification/AlternativeA more relevant pro-cap case would cite specific externalities (e.g., governance failures), which are not provided. The anti-cap case fits the liberalised market premise and offers a consistent rationale.Common pitfallsTreating pay caps as a tool for industrial protectionism without explaining the mechanism; ignoring incentive effects and global talent mobility.Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.

Question 8

Statement: Should there be a ceiling on the salary of top executives of multinationals in our country? Arguments: Yes. Otherwise it would lead to unhealthy competition and our own industry would not be able to withstand that. No. With the accent on …

Accepted Answer

In the absence of such a ceiling, the companies would be involved in a mutual competition of salaries, in a bid to attract the most competent professionals. So, argument I holds. Also, the prospects of increase in salary would encourage the officials to perform better in the interest of the company they serve, which would otherwise not be so if a ceiling is imposed. So, argument II also holds strong.

Question 9

Critical reasoning — free school education in India: Should school education be made free across India, weighing the assertion that making schooling free is the only way to improve literacy against the counter-concern that such a policy would add su…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Make school education free nationwide?Argument I (Yes): Free education is the only way to raise literacy.Argument II (No): It would increase the fiscal burden on the exchequer.Concept/Approach (absolutist claims vs. pragmatic constraints)A strong argument avoids absolute 'only way' claims unless justified. Fiscal sustainability is a legitimate policy constraint that directly bears on feasibility.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I is over-absolute; literacy can also be advanced by incentives, mid-day meals, adult education, infrastructure, conditional cash transfers, etc. Hence, weak.2) Argument II highlights a direct, material constraint (budgetary capacity), which is relevant to nationwide free schooling. Hence, strong.Verification/AlternativeThe debate would typically consider phased targets or targeted subsidies; none of that rescues the 'only way' claim.Common pitfallsConfusing desirability (free schooling) with necessity/uniqueness of means.Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.

Question 10

Critical reasoning — removing import duty on electronic goods: Should import duties on all electronic goods be fully dispensed with, considering the objection that it would sharply reduce government revenue and harm development programmes, and the f…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Remove import duty on all electronic goods?Argument I (No): Government revenue would fall, undermining developmental activities.Argument II (No): Local manufacturers would not compete effectively against technologically superior imports.Concept/Approach (multi-impact evaluation)A strong counter-argument may invoke fiscal impact and industrial capacity concerns. Both are directly relevant to a blanket duty removal.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I: Tariff removal typically reduces customs revenue; given development relies partly on public funds, this is a pertinent objection.2) Argument II: Abrupt opening to superior foreign tech can injure nascent domestic firms; the competitiveness concern is relevant.Verification/AlternativePhased reductions or targeted exemptions would usually be considered; the proposal here is across-the-board removal, so both objections hold.Common pitfallsIgnoring either fiscal sustainability or strategic nurturing of domestic capability.Final AnswerBoth I and II are strong.

Question 11

Critical reasoning — legal duty on children to care for aged parents: Should the law make adult children legally responsible for taking care of their parents in old age, with arguments claiming that only legal means can solve such issues and that on…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Impose a legal obligation on children to care for parents?Argument I (Yes): Such matters can only be solved legally.Argument II (Yes): Only this will relieve poor parents.Concept/Approach (avoid absolutism)Both arguments use the absolute 'only', excluding cultural, community, social-security, and policy supports. Strong arguments should not rely on sweeping exclusivity without proof.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I ignores non-legal avenues (pensions, social care, insurance, community support).2) Argument II overstates that legal compulsion alone brings relief; financial capacity and services also matter.Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.

Question 12

Critical reasoning — reservation in government jobs for candidates from single-child families: Should government jobs include a reservation quota for applicants from single-child families, balancing the merit-based objection against the claim that s…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Reservation for single-child family candidates?Argument I (No): Jobs should be awarded on merit; group-based reservation here is inadvisable.Argument II (Yes): Such reservation would reduce population growth by incentivising single-child families.Concept/Approach (job policy vs. demographic policy)A strong argument should align hiring with job competence and fairness. Using employment reservation to engineer fertility choices is speculative and misaligned with recruitment principles.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I directly supports merit-based selection in government service; relevant and strong.2) Argument II assumes a significant behavioural response without addressing ethics, fairness, or effectiveness; weak.Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.

Question 13

Critical reasoning — temporary stoppage of higher education: Should higher education be completely stopped for some time, in view of the objection that it would hamper the nation's future progress and the counter-claim that it would reduce the probl…

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Stop higher education for some time?Argument I (No): Such a stoppage would harm the country's future progress.Argument II (Yes): It would reduce educated unemployment.Concept/Approach (long-term capability vs. short-term symptom)Higher education builds human capital and innovation capacity. Reducing enrolments to shrink unemployment treats a symptom while damaging long-term growth.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I is directly relevant to national progress and is strong.2) Argument II presumes a mechanical link between fewer graduates and lower unemployment, ignoring demand-side job creation and skill mismatches; weak.Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.

Question 14

Critical reasoning — scrapping the Public Distribution System (PDS): Should India abolish the PDS on the grounds that protectionism is outdated and everyone should earn their bread independently, and that the poor derive no benefit due to corruption?

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: Scrap PDS?Argument I (Yes): Protectionism is over; everyone should procure bread on their own.Argument II (Yes): Corruption means the poor get no benefit.Concept/Approach (policy purpose and evidence)A strong argument should be grounded in the PDS's welfare role and real performance, not ideology or blanket claims.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I appeals to ideology and ignores food security aims; it doesn't justify abolishing a welfare mechanism.2) Argument II is an overstatement; even with leakages, reform (Aadhaar/DBT/PoS) is a typical response, not scrapping. Thus, both weak.Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.

Question 15

Critical reasoning — should India have no military at all?: Should India completely do away with its military forces, considering the objection that other countries do not adhere to non-violence and the supporting claim that many Indians personally …

Accepted Answer

Given dataStatement: India should have no military force at all?Argument I (No): Other countries do not believe in non-violence.Argument II (Yes): Many Indians believe in non-violence.Concept/Approach (security realism vs. individual beliefs)National defence must consider external threats and the behaviour of other states; private beliefs in non-violence do not neutralise external aggression.Step-by-step evaluation1) Argument I is directly relevant to deterrence and security, hence strong.2) Argument II is irrelevant to interstate security dynamics; weak.Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.

Question 16

Critical Reasoning – Are nuclear families better than joint families? Arguments: I. No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work. II. Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:“Arguments” questions ask whether each argument is strong—i.e., directly relevant, reasonable, and capable of supporting a stance. The prompt compares two family structures: joint vs nuclear. We must judge the strength of each argument, not which structure is better.Given Data / Assumptions:Topic: comparative merits of joint and nuclear families.Argument I (against): Joint families provide security and reduce workload burden.Argument II (for): Nuclear families provide greater freedom.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should be specific to the question, touch on key criteria relevant to “better,” and be plausible. Security/work-sharing and personal freedom/autonomy are central dimensions in such evaluations, making each argument contextually meaningful.Step-by-Step Evaluation:Assess I: Security (economic, emotional, child/elder care) and distributed household duties are recognized advantages of joint families. This addresses “better” with concrete benefits, so I is strong.Assess II: Greater independence, decision autonomy, and privacy are hallmark advantages of nuclear families, directly relevant to the “better” criterion for many households. II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Both arguments cite widely acknowledged, policy-neutral factors that can rationally sway evaluation depending on values and circumstances.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: Ignores that both offer substantive, opposing yet valid considerations.Either I or II: Not mutually exclusive; both can be strong simultaneously.Neither: Both arguments are clearly relevant and reasonable.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “strength of argument” with personal agreement; assuming a single correct family model irrespective of context.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 17

Critical reasoning – Should the government stop spending large amounts of money on international sports? Statement: “Should government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports?” Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes, the same money can be…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a standard “Arguments” critical-reasoning item. We are asked whether the government should stop spending large amounts on international sports and to judge which of the two given arguments is strong, i.e., logical, relevant, and sufficiently persuasive without relying on extreme assumptions.Given Data / Assumptions:The issue concerns public expenditure on international sports.Argument I claims the same budget should be diverted to poverty alleviation.Argument II claims cutting spending would frustrate athletes and curtail exposure.No specific data about budget shares, opportunity costs, or outcomes is provided.Concept / Approach:In this format, a strong argument is specific, pragmatic, and directly addresses the policy decision without overgeneralization or false dilemmas. We must avoid arguments that presume an either–or trade-off or that rely on emotions without evidence.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess Argument I: It assumes every rupee spent on sports necessarily reduces funds for the poor and that complete cessation is the only way to fund welfare. Public budgets are multi-sectoral; the claim is simplistic and prescriptive without evidence of inefficiency in sports spending or marginal benefits of reallocation. Hence, weak.Assess Argument II: It assumes that exposure is only possible through large government spending and that cutting “huge” amounts automatically frustrates athletes. Alternatives exist (targeted grants, private sponsorships, high-performance schemes). The claim is speculative and not sufficient to justify maintaining “huge” spending. Hence, weak.Verification / Alternative check:A balanced strong argument would cite cost–benefit, multiplier effects (tourism, health), or improved targeting of funds. Neither given argument offers such substance.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I strong / Only II strong / Either / Both: Each overstates the quality of the respective argument(s). Neither is adequately reasoned or data-grounded.Common Pitfalls:Treating budgets as zero-sum without nuance; accepting emotional appeals (frustration) as policy logic.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong

Question 18

Critical reasoning – Should railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all employees? Statement: “Should the railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Employees have the right to travel …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The question evaluates which argument logically supports or opposes ending employee free passes. A strong argument must be relevant, non-extreme, and supported by reasonable assumptions, not mere assertions.Given Data / Assumptions:Policy under debate: immediate stoppage of free passes to all employees.Argument I asserts a “right” to travel free without basis.Argument II asserts better facilities will result from savings, with no analysis.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments provide clear causal links or principles. A claimed “right” must stem from statute, contract, or equity. A claimed benefit (better facilities) must be plausibly tied to freed resources and their efficient reinvestment.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Without reference to any rule or contract, calling free travel a “right” is an assertion, not an argument. Benefits may be perks, not fundamental rights. Hence, weak.Argument II: While saving money could help facilities, it assumes immediate, full, and efficient redirection of funds, ignoring morale and HR implications. It is speculative and not sufficient on its own. Hence, weak.Verification / Alternative check:A strong pro-change argument would show data on costs and facility improvements; a strong anti-change argument would cite contractual obligations or essential duty-related travel. Neither is provided.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Options claiming I or II strong, either, or both attribute undue strength to weak, unsubstantiated claims.Common Pitfalls:Confusing a benefit with a right; assuming savings automatically become service improvements.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong

Question 19

Critical reasoning – Should medical examination of both partners be compulsory before marriage? Statement: “Should there be compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. It …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem weighs individual privacy against public-health and family-health benefits. We must judge which argument is stronger, not which policy we personally prefer.Given Data / Assumptions:The proposal is universal and compulsory medical examination before marriage.Argument I: privacy intrusion (rights-based), without considering public-health benefits.Argument II: medical screening can reduce risks of serious ailments in offspring (public-health benefit).Concept / Approach:In arguments questions, a strong argument is specific, relevant, and logically connects the policy to a significant outcome. Public-health measures (screening, counseling) have demonstrable benefits in preventing transmissible or hereditary conditions.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: While privacy is a legitimate concern, it is presented as an absolute without balancing against potential benefits or considering safeguards (confidentiality, limited-purpose testing). As framed, it is weak.Argument II: Demonstrates a concrete, widely recognized benefit—early detection and counseling lower risks of severe conditions (e.g., certain genetic disorders, infectious diseases) in children. The causal link between compulsory screening and reduced risk is clear. Hence, strong.Verification / Alternative check:Public-health precedents (prenatal screening, premarital counseling in some jurisdictions) aim to reduce serious health burdens—supporting the reasoning of Argument II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I strong / Either / Neither / Both: These misjudge the relative strength; only II provides a compelling, consequential rationale aligned with the policy goal.Common Pitfalls:Treating privacy as absolute without considering regulated, confidential medical processes designed to protect rights.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 20

Critical reasoning – Should there be a ban on product advertising? Statement: “Should there be a complete ban on product advertising?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. In a competitive age, without effective advertising, products will not sell. II. Yes…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The question asks whether a blanket ban on product advertising is desirable. We must judge which argument is logically strong for policy-making.Given Data / Assumptions:Advertising informs, differentiates, and signals quality; costs can be significant.Argument I links advertising to market functioning and competition.Argument II cites cost inflation as a reason to ban all advertising.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should advocate a proportionate policy. Market communication is central to competition; if cost is the issue, regulation or caps may be proportionate rather than a total ban.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Valid. In competitive markets, advertising conveys information (price, features, availability), enabling consumer choice and efficient matching. A total ban can harm new entrants and innovation. Hence, strong.Argument II: While advertising can add costs, the conclusion (total ban) is disproportionate. Better solutions exist (truth-in-advertising laws, limits on misleading claims, disclosure rules). Hence, weak as framed.Verification / Alternative check:Economics supports informative and persuasive roles of ads; policy often regulates content/time rather than banning outright.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II strong / Either / Neither / Both: Misrepresent the relative strength and proportionality of the arguments.Common Pitfalls:Assuming high cost alone justifies prohibition; ignoring consumer-information value.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter