Question 1

Statement: Should there be a screening test only for those doctors who get their qualification from foreign universities and want to practise in India? Arguments: I. Yes, the move will be effective by controlling the quality of doctors coming into I…

Accepted Answer

I Only I is strong. Quality of a doctor must not be neglected. II is not strong because it adds nothing to the statement.

Question 2

Statement: Should there be a ban on using mobile phones while driving vehicles? Arguments: I. No. This will affect the basic purpose of keeping a mobile phone. II. Yes. Two works simultaneously should not be permissible.

Accepted Answer

Basic purpose of keeping a mobile phone is to facilitate mobile holders to be in touch whit the outside would. This purpose will not be affected even after the implementation of the move. Hence , I is weak. II is ambiguous.

Question 3

Statement: Should there be a ban on surnames which reflect the cast and religion of persons? Arguments: I. Yes, This move will encourage communal harmony which is very much desirable in secular states like India. II. No, It is against our old social…

Accepted Answer

Both communal harmony and furthering of social customs are desirable.

Question 4

Statement: Should private courier services be banned in India? Arguments: I. Yes, a lot of manipulation regarding charges has been witnessed by many courier services. II. No, private services always provide better services than other.

Accepted Answer

Any private services can't be banned only because there are charges against manipulation which can be rectified by legal actions. Hence I weak. II is also weak because of the word 'always'.

Question 5

Statement: Should registration of marriages be made mandatory for Indian citizens? Arguments: I. Yes, This will help in legal processes when any problem related whit marriages erupts. Besides, it will also be helpful for government while planning ac…

Accepted Answer

I is strong : it reveals the very purpose of registration of marriages. II is an absurd argument.

Question 6

Statement: Should people be allowed to rear endangered species like musk deer for commercial purposes? Arguments: I. Yes, prosperity of a nation depends upon the prosperity of its citizens. If more options of earning will be there before a citizen h…

Accepted Answer

I is weak because it does not hit at the main question ___''rearing endangered species''. II is weak because it assumes that rearing musk deer will diminish their number. Experience, on the other hand, tells us that rearing of a species for commercial purposes only adds to its number.

Question 7

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 8

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 13

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 14

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 17

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 18

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

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

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter