Question 1

Statement: Should HIV-positive children be provided “in-house school” facilities instead of continuing in regular outside schools? Arguments: I. Yes. This preventive step will ease the tension of many parents who send their wards to outside schools.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Education policy should protect child rights, inclusion, and well-being. Strong arguments should align with non-discrimination, social integration, and educational purpose. Given Data / Assumptions: HIV is not transmitted through casual classroom contact. Isolation risks stigma and social-development harm. Concept / Approach: Argument I prioritizes easing other parents’ anxiety, not the rights or interests of HIV-positive children; it legitimizes stigma, making it weak as a policy rationale. Argument II highlights isolation and harm to educational aims (socialization, inclusion), making a principled case against segregation—strong. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Weak—appeals to prejudice rather than public-interest education goals.• II: Strong—identifies direct harm to children’s learning and social development and conflicts with inclusive education principles. Verification / Alternative check: Inclusive schooling with awareness and safeguards protects all students while respecting rights, reinforcing II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that includes I treats stigma relief as a valid policy end overriding children’s rights. Common Pitfalls: Confusing public discomfort with a legitimate justification for exclusion. Final Answer: Only argument II is strong.

Question 2

Statement: Should foreign collaborations in higher education be allowed without proper scrutiny? Arguments: I. No. Associations should not be allowed without scrutiny because some collaborations are fraudulent and make false promises of jobs and fac…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The policy asks about allowing collaborations without scrutiny. Strong arguments must address why scrutiny is needed. Brain drain is a broader labor-market phenomenon, not specific to the lack of scrutiny. Given Data / Assumptions: Scrutiny filters fraud and quality risks. Brain drain occurs even with highly reputable, fully scrutinized institutions. Concept / Approach: Argument I directly targets the core of the statement: in the absence of scrutiny, fraud risk rises; therefore, “allow without scrutiny” should be rejected—strong. Argument II, although a genuine concern, does not hinge on the presence or absence of scrutiny; reputable collaborations can also attract talent abroad. Hence II does not specifically support the “without scrutiny” decision—weak in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Strong—scrutiny mitigates consumer protection and quality risks central to the decision.• II: Misaligned—addresses a different policy issue (migration), not the necessity of scrutiny. Verification / Alternative check: Even with stringent scrutiny, brain drain may persist; thus II is not a deciding argument on the posed question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Including II mistakes a general effect for a scrutiny-specific rationale. Common Pitfalls: Conflating quality-control policy with macro migration dynamics. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 3

Statement: Should there be reservation for the very poor among the upper castes? Arguments: I. Yes. The purpose of reservation is to uplift weaker sections, which can include the very poor among upper castes. II. No. The move will divide upper caste…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Reservation policy is justified by uplift of disadvantaged sections. A strong argument must tie eligibility to the underlying rationale (disadvantage), not to preserving social hierarchies. Given Data / Assumptions: Target group: economically very poor among upper castes. Criterion: alignment with the goal of assisting the disadvantaged. Concept / Approach: Argument I grounds eligibility in disadvantage, a core policy principle—strong. Argument II appeals to preserving “age-old social structure,” which is not a legitimate policy goal when the aim is distributive justice; it neither provides evidence of systemic harm nor addresses equity—weak. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Strong—links reservation to need-based uplift.• II: Weak—status-quo defense without public-interest reasoning. Verification / Alternative check: If reservation aims at disadvantage mitigation, widening based on poverty is coherent; II remains non-instrumental. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that include II validate a non-policy objective (maintaining social structure) as decisive. Common Pitfalls: Equating disruption of hierarchy with policy harm. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 4

Statement: Should a Conditional Access System (CAS) be implemented in India so TV viewers can select channels and pay only for those chosen? Arguments: I. Yes. CAS would give viewers freedom of choice and allow payment only for selected channels. II…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Statement–Argument questions judge whether an argument directly advances or undermines the policy in a principled, relevant way. Here, the policy is to implement a Conditional Access System (CAS) so viewers choose and pay only for selected channels. Given Data / Assumptions: CAS enables channel-level subscription. Strong arguments should focus on consumer welfare, transparency, and enforceability. We are not provided external statistics; evaluate intrinsic merit. Concept / Approach: Argument I connects CAS to core consumer benefits—choice and price discrimination aligned with usage. Argument II claims the system neglects rights/obligations and primarily serves commercial interests, but provides no mechanism why CAS inherently prevents a proper regulatory framework or why it must harm consumers. Step-by-Step Solution: • Assess I: Freedom to pick channels and pay only for them directly addresses consumer surplus and allocative efficiency ⇒ strong.• Assess II: Raises governance/design concerns but as stated is generic and assumes frameworks cannot be clarified. Without showing inherent defect in CAS, it is speculative ⇒ weak. Verification / Alternative check: If II offered concrete evidence (e.g., mandated bundling negating choice, opaque pricing that historically raised bills), it could be stronger. As framed, it lacks specifics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II overvalue an unsubstantiated caution; “either” is incorrect because I is independently strong; “neither” ignores I’s direct relevance. Common Pitfalls: Confusing design/implementation gaps with invalidation of the underlying policy objective. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 5

Statement: Should doctors and engineers be banned from appearing in the civil services examination? Arguments: I. No. Banning them would deprive the civil services of some of the best talent available to work for public welfare. II. Yes. Taxpayers s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The question examines eligibility norms for civil services. A strong argument should align with public-interest goals—merit, capacity, and institutional effectiveness—rather than narrow gatekeeping. Given Data / Assumptions: Civil services aim to recruit capable generalists and specialists for governance. Doctors and engineers often possess analytical and operational skills valuable to administration. Concept / Approach: Argument I emphasizes talent maximization for public welfare—directly aligned with the mission of civil services and hence strong. Argument II presumes that a subsidised education must be “used” only in that profession; however, citizens repay society in multiple ways (public administration, health policy design, infrastructure oversight). The argument also ignores service bonds, fee structures, or clawbacks that could address specific cost concerns without a blanket ban. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Positively connects diverse expertise to better governance ⇒ strong.• II: Narrow, punitive framing; fails to establish that switching reduces net social benefit or that bans are superior to alternative policies ⇒ weak. Verification / Alternative check: Where subsidy misuse is a concern, targeted remedies (bond service, repayment) exist without excluding a talent pool. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Including II mistakes fiscal frustration for optimal recruitment policy; “either”/“neither” ignore I’s clear public-interest basis. Common Pitfalls: Equating field-specific education with lifelong obligation to a single career track. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 6

Statement: Should fishing be banned during the monsoon season? Arguments: I. Yes. Monsoon is the breeding season for many fish species, so a ban supports regeneration of stocks. II. No. A ban will enormously increase fish prices. Select the option t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Closed seasons are standard conservation tools. A strong argument should link the policy to sustainability and long-term public benefit, not only to short-run price effects. Given Data / Assumptions: Monsoon coincides with spawning for many species. Overfishing during breeding reduces biomass and future catch. Concept / Approach: Argument I is conservation-centric and promotes long-term yield stability—squarely in the public interest. Argument II identifies a predictable, temporary price effect, but price management can be addressed by imports, storage, or phased bans; higher prices alone do not invalidate conservation policy. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Directly advances sustainability, replenishment, and future livelihoods ⇒ strong.• II: Highlights a transitional cost but not a decisive reason to reject the ban ⇒ weak. Verification / Alternative check: Many fisheries use seasonal bans with compensatory measures (alternative income programs, cold-chain buffers), preserving I’s merit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II elevate a manageable side effect over the core conservation rationale. Common Pitfalls: Short-termism that sacrifices stock regeneration and long-run consumer welfare. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 7

Statement: Should cricket be made India’s national game, replacing hockey? Arguments: I. Yes. India’s performance in hockey is dismal compared to cricket. II. Yes. Cricket and cricketers receive more recognition than hockey and hockey players. Selec…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Designating a national game is a symbolic-cultural policy. Strong arguments should appeal to enduring cultural significance, historical legacy, inclusivity, and educational value—not transient performance or popularity metrics. Given Data / Assumptions: The decision is symbolic/normative, not a league-table award. Cricket’s popularity and media coverage are high; hockey holds historic identity. Concept / Approach: Argument I uses comparative performance. But national symbols are not chosen on current win–loss records; performance fluctuates and is orthogonal to symbolism. Argument II cites recognition/popularity; popularity is market-driven and volatile, and does not by itself justify altering a national symbol. Neither argument articulates principles of national identity, heritage, or educational/social goals that would justify the change. Step-by-Step Solution: • Assess I: Instrumental to sports administration, not to symbolic designation ⇒ weak.• Assess II: Popularity/recognition is a media effect, not a principled criterion for a national emblem ⇒ weak. Verification / Alternative check: A strong “Yes” might rest on broad cultural integration across regions and history; a strong “No” might rest on continuity of heritage. Neither I nor II makes such principled claims. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that selects I or II treats mutable metrics as decisive for a symbolic policy. Common Pitfalls: Confusing market popularity or current form with criteria for national symbolism. Final Answer: Neither argument I nor II is strong.

Question 8

Statement: Should the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) be empowered with penal powers? Arguments: I. Yes. Penal powers can deter and restrict rapidly increasing human-rights violations. II. No. People may avoid approaching human-rights bodies…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Enforcement capacity influences human-rights protection. Strong arguments should address deterrence, accountability, and access to justice. Given Data / Assumptions: Human-rights violations are a concern; current powers may be largely recommendatory. Penal powers can raise compliance costs for violators. Concept / Approach: Argument I clearly links stronger powers to deterrence and improved compliance—central to rights protection—hence strong. Argument II predicts reduced approachability due to “red-tapism,” but this is speculative; procedural design (time limits, summary procedures, outreach) can preserve accessibility while adding teeth. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Strengthens enforcement and deterrence ⇒ strong.• II: Conflates power with bureaucracy; with proper safeguards, empowerment need not chill reporting ⇒ weak. Verification / Alternative check: Hybrid models (penal powers with graded sanctions and mediation) can balance deterrence and approachability, reinforcing I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II give weight to a conjecture not inherent to the policy. Common Pitfalls: Assuming stricter enforcement necessarily reduces accessibility. Final Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Question 9

Statement: Should India restart the bus service with a neighbouring country that is alleged to be an epicentre of cross-border terrorism? Arguments: I. Yes. It can expand access to better healthcare, quality products, and business opportunities, eas…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cross-border connectivity policies often involve a trade-off between economic/people-to-people gains and security risks. In Statement–Argument framing, two opposing, self-contained arguments can each be strong if both present valid, policy-relevant considerations. Given Data / Assumptions: Potential benefits: trade, medical access, reduced hostility, social ties. Potential risks: smuggling, terrorism finance/logistics. Concept / Approach: Argument I is strong because it cites concrete public-interest benefits that such services commonly deliver, aligning with diplomacy and development goals. Argument II is also strong because security externalities are real and material; the possibility of illicit flows is directly relevant to the decision. Step-by-Step Solution: • Evaluate I: Presents legitimate gains from connectivity—health access, commerce, détente—hence strong.• Evaluate II: Presents legitimate harms—illicit trade, arms movement—hence strong.• Since both are independently strong but mutually pull in opposite directions, the appropriate choice is “either I or II is strong.” Verification / Alternative check: In practice, policymakers mitigate II (customs, passenger vetting, intel sharing) while pursuing I. But the exam’s logical framing treats the pro and con as separately strong. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” or “Only II” ignores the competing but valid consideration; “neither” dismisses both public-interest and security logics. Common Pitfalls: Believing mutually conflicting arguments cannot both be strong; in policy analysis, they often can. Final Answer: Either I or II is strong.

Question 10

Statement: Should SC/ST candidates who scored below the qualifying 40% in MBBS be selected to fill reserved medical seats? Arguments: I. Yes. Reserved seats must be filled by category candidates to meet constitutional norms. II. No. Selecting below …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Admissions standards in medicine serve public safety and professional competence. Reservation addresses historic disadvantage, but qualifying thresholds ensure a minimum competency needed for patient care. Given Data / Assumptions: Qualifying mark is 40% in MBBS. The proposal is to admit candidates below this cut-off to fill reserved seats. Concept / Approach: Argument I conflates seat-filling with constitutional compliance. Reservation pursues access and equity, but generally within standards designed to protect professional quality. Simply “filling seats” cannot override explicit competency floors. Argument II correctly states that admitting below the qualifying mark undermines the rationale of a qualifying threshold, which exists to protect patient safety and training integrity. Step-by-Step Solution: • Assess I: Seat fulfillment is not the sole constitutional objective; standards remain binding unless explicitly revised. Thus I is weak.• Assess II: Preserves the integrity of minimum competency—central to medical education and public interest ⇒ strong. Verification / Alternative check: Equity can be advanced upstream (bridge courses, preparatory programs, financial/academic support) while maintaining minimum professional thresholds, supporting II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I alone or with II treats quota fulfillment as trumping safety; “either”/“neither” misdiagnose the normative force of standards. Common Pitfalls: Assuming reservation mandates selection irrespective of competence thresholds. Final Answer: Only argument II is strong.

Question 11

Statement–Argument (Criminal Justice): Statement: Should the sole testimony of a rape victim be considered sufficient to prove the accused's guilt? Arguments: I) Yes, rape is a heinous offence and must be dealt with severely. II) No, relying on a si…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item evaluates how to judge “strong” arguments in Statement–Argument questions. A strong argument is relevant, fact-based or principle-based, and directly addresses the feasibility, risks, or consequences of the proposal. Emotional intensity alone does not make an argument strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Proposal: Treat the sole testimony of a rape victim as sufficient to prove guilt. Argument I: Appeals to the gravity of rape (a heinous offence). Argument II: Warns of the increased risk of wrongful convictions if a single statement must suffice. Concept / Approach: In critical reasoning, strong arguments must connect to due process, reliability of evidence, safeguards against error, and implementability. Severity of a crime may justify prioritising speed and support for victims but does not, by itself, justify lowering evidentiary thresholds. The second argument directly addresses evidentiary reliability and judicial outcomes. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify relevance: Argument I states a value judgment about the offence; it does not evaluate the evidentiary rule’s reliability or fairness.Assess sufficiency: The question is about whether “sole testimony” is enough. This hinges on error rates, corroboration, and procedural safeguards, not on the moral gravity per se.Argument II highlights the real risk of Type I errors (convicting innocents) and is therefore policy-relevant and practical. Verification / Alternative check: Robust systems typically balance victim-centric processes (speedy trial, witness protection) with safeguards (corroboration where feasible, scrutiny of credibility, cross-examination). An automatic rule that a single testimony is “sufficient” disregards that balancing and can create systemic error risk—exactly the concern raised by Argument II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Argument I: Appeals to emotion/severity without showing that the rule improves truth-finding; hence weak. “Either” or “Neither”: II is clearly the stronger, targeted argument; I is not comparably strong. Common Pitfalls: Equating moral outrage with policy adequacy; confusing tough-on-crime rhetoric with due-process safeguards. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 12

Statement–Argument (Public Funding & Federal Process): Statement: Should the Central Government release social justice and empowerment funds directly to NGOs when a state government fails to send requisitions? Arguments: I) Yes, many NGOs have grass…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: When states do not requisition Central funds, the Centre faces a delivery dilemma: route funds directly to NGOs to keep schemes alive, or avoid bypassing state mechanisms to preserve accountability. A “strong” argument must be relevant and policy-grounded. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Posits NGOs’ grassroots capacity and prior experience, supporting direct release to maintain service continuity. Argument II: Raises verification, audit, and coordination risks if the Centre bypasses states. We are not judging political preferences; only argument strength and relevance to feasibility and safeguards. Concept / Approach: Both I and II address the crux: service continuity versus oversight. I is relevant because capacity at the last mile can prevent program collapse. II is relevant because fiduciary controls, duplication/ghost beneficiaries, and monitoring challenges can escalate without state mediation. Step-by-Step Solution: Check I for relevance and practicality: leveraging NGOs can be a stop-gap to protect beneficiaries—this is a strong pro argument.Check II for risk and implementability: due diligence and accountability are core to public finance—this is a strong con argument.Since both independently meet strength criteria, the correct meta-choice is that either I or II is strong. Verification / Alternative check: Public finance commonly weighs delivery continuity (I) against control/oversight (II). Depending on context (crisis vs routine, existing NGO vetting), either side could reasonably prevail, confirming both as strong. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one ignores the other’s substantive policy basis; “neither” disregards clear practical considerations. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that a “Yes” argument must be stronger than a “No” argument; in policy, both can be strong in different conditions. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 13

Statement–Argument (Centre–State Coordination): Statement: Should the Union (Centre) consult a state government before deploying the army in that state for maintaining law and order? Arguments: I) Yes, taking the state into confidence improves coope…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Army deployment for internal security is sensitive and coordination-heavy. Strong arguments should emphasise operational efficacy, legitimacy, and practical cooperation rather than mere assertions of hierarchy. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Coordination can enhance terrain knowledge, logistics, and acceptance, raising effectiveness. Argument II: Appeals to constitutional hierarchy (Centre above states) without addressing operational outcomes. Concept / Approach: Strength in Statement–Argument is judged by relevance and practicality. Argument I provides a substantive, outcome-oriented reason: cooperation improves mission success and reduces friction. Argument II is a bare assertion of authority that does not evaluate the policy’s effectiveness. Step-by-Step Solution: Test I: Does consulting states plausibly improve deployment outcomes? Yes—intelligence, local policing synergy, and civilian coordination improve.Test II: Does superiority alone imply skipping consultation yields better outcomes? No—the claim is unrelated to feasibility or efficacy. Verification / Alternative check: Even urgent deployments often involve quick liaison with states for area familiarisation, rules of engagement alignment, and law-and-order continuity, reinforcing I’s strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II lacks operational reasoning; “either” or “neither” misclassifies the relative strengths. Common Pitfalls: Confusing legal competence with policy wisdom; authority does not negate the benefits of coordination. Final Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Question 14

Statement–Argument (Population Policy & Ethics): Statement: Should India make it compulsory to sterilise every woman going for a second delivery? Arguments: I) Yes, it is the only way to reduce population growth rapidly. II) No, it would be a cruel,…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public policy on fertility touches fundamental rights, ethics, and feasibility. A strong argument must show practical viability and/or rights-based justification consistent with democratic norms. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Claims compulsion is the “only way”—an extreme assertion requiring strong evidence and ignoring alternatives (education, contraception access, economic incentives, women’s workforce participation). Argument II: Emphasises cruelty, coercion, and violation of bodily autonomy—core constitutional/ethical concerns. Concept / Approach: Argument I is weak: “only way” overgeneralises, neglecting proven non-coercive levers. It neither addresses rights nor demonstrates implementability without massive harm. Argument II is strong: it invokes widely accepted rights-based principles; compulsory sterilisation would be coercive with high risk of abuse and inequity. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I’s exclusivity claim: multiple policy tools exist, so “only way” is untenable.Assess II’s rights claim: bodily autonomy and informed consent are fundamental in modern health policy—compulsion directly contravenes them.Therefore, II is strong; I is weak. Verification / Alternative check: Global demographic transitions have been achieved via education, access to reproductive health, and empowerment, undermining I’s “only way.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: I lacks evidence and ignores alternatives; “either/neither” would misread the clear rights-based strength of II. Common Pitfalls: Accepting extreme claims without examining feasible, humane alternatives. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 17

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 18

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

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

Statement and Argument Questions