Question 1

Should high chimneys be installed in industrial plants in order to control pollution? Arguments: 1. Yes, because tall chimneys reduce pollution at ground level around the factory. 2. No, because high chimneys increase pollution in the upper layers o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about environmental pollution control in industries. The proposal is to install high chimneys. One argument supports this by pointing out reduced pollution at ground level, while the other opposes it by pointing out increased pollution higher up in the atmosphere. You must decide which arguments are strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: High chimneys should be installed in industries. Argument 1: Yes, tall chimneys reduce pollution at ground level. Argument 2: No, tall chimneys increase pollution in the upper atmosphere. We assume the objective is to reduce harmful impact of industrial emissions on people and the environment. Concept / Approach: A strong argument can be in favour or against the proposal as long as it is realistic and relevant. Here, both near ground air quality and overall atmospheric pollution are important. Installing high chimneys solves the local problem but may shift pollutants higher, where they can contribute to regional or global issues. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It states that high chimneys lower pollution at ground level, which protects workers and nearby residents. Step 2: This is a valid point because high chimneys disperse emissions over a larger area and reduce direct exposure locally. So argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It warns that pollution is not eliminated but moved higher into the atmosphere, where it can still cause harm, for example by contributing to acid rain or climate change. Step 4: This is also a valid environmental concern. Therefore, argument 2 is strong as well. Verification / Alternative check: From a policy point of view, both local and global impacts must be considered. This confirms that both arguments raise important and realistic issues. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that treat only one of the arguments as strong ignore the other side of the environmental problem. The option that neither argument is strong is clearly wrong, because both arguments show genuine effects of high chimneys. The option that the impact cannot be judged is incorrect because basic environmental science is enough to evaluate these arguments. Common Pitfalls: Some students think that only one argument may be strong in every question. However, in many policy based questions, two opposing arguments can both be strong and realistic. Final Answer: Thus, both arguments 1 and 2 are strong, so the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.

Question 2

Should the railways in India be privatised in a phased manner, like other public sector enterprises? Arguments: 1. Yes, because privatisation is a way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to passengers. 2. No, because privatisatio…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about economic reforms and privatisation of Indian Railways. Two arguments are given, one that highlights competition and service quality, and another that vaguely mentions wastage of resources. You must decide which argument is strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Railways in India should be privatised in a phased manner. Argument 1: Yes, privatisation brings competitiveness and better services. Argument 2: No, privatisation leads to wastage of resources. We assume that any major reform should be justified with clear, concrete reasoning. Concept / Approach: A strong argument gives a specific and relevant reason. In discussions about privatisation, standard pros include competition, efficiency and improved services. Standard cons include loss of control or increased prices, but these must be presented clearly. Vague claims without explanation are not considered strong arguments. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It links privatisation to competitiveness and better services, which is a recognised and logical outcome in many sectors. Step 2: This argument is relevant and based on well known economic reasoning. So argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It simply says that privatisation leads to wastage of resources but does not explain how or why. Step 4: Without specific reasoning, this statement looks like a loose claim and therefore is a weak argument. Verification / Alternative check: Ask whether a policy maker could rely on argument 2 alone. Because it lacks details, it would not be persuasive. Argument 1, however, could be part of a serious policy discussion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The option that only argument 2 is strong is wrong because 2 is vague. The option that both arguments are strong wrongly treats them as equal. The option that neither is strong is incorrect because argument 1 is clearly relevant. The option that the issue cannot be decided is also not appropriate, as we are not making a real policy decision, only evaluating the arguments. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that any argument against privatisation is strong if they personally oppose privatisation. In exams, you must judge the quality of reasoning, not your personal views. Final Answer: Hence, only argument 1 is strong, so the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.

Question 3

Should only the articles of deserving authors be allowed to be published in newspapers and magazines? Arguments: 1. Yes, because this will save a lot of paper which is already in short supply. 2. No, because it is very difficult to draw a clear line…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with editorial policy in publishing. The proposal is that only deserving authors should be allowed to publish articles. Two arguments are given, one focusing on saving paper and the other on the difficulty of judging who is deserving. You need to identify the strong argument. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Only articles of deserving authors should be published. Argument 1: Yes, this will save paper because paper is in short supply. Argument 2: No, it is not easy to decide who is deserving and who is not. We assume that editorial decisions should focus on quality, fairness and practicality. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must be central to the issue. The core of this question is about criteria for publication, not paper shortage. Argument 1 shifts the focus from quality to a resource issue, which is secondary. Argument 2 directly addresses the difficulty of objectively applying a rule based on the word "deserving." Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It says the rule will save paper. However, saving paper can also be achieved through better editing, digital formats or page limits. It is not a convincing justification for restricting publication only to so called deserving authors. Step 2: Hence, argument 1 is weak and not central to the stated policy. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It points out that there is no clear and objective way to separate deserving from undeserving authors. Step 4: Since the lack of clear criteria can lead to bias and unfair exclusion, this is a strong and realistic practical objection to the proposal. Verification / Alternative check: Consider how an editor would behave. They would worry about fairness and possible controversies in rejecting work, not mainly about paper usage. This supports the strength of argument 2. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that treat argument 1 as strong ignore that it does not address the core problem. The option that both arguments are strong is wrong because they are not equally relevant. The option that neither is strong is also wrong because argument 2 clearly raises a serious challenge. The option that selection cannot be judged from these arguments is incorrect since we can evaluate them logically. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that any economic argument like saving paper is strong. But in logical reasoning, the argument must be central to the decision and not a side issue. Final Answer: Therefore, only argument 2 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 2 alone as strong.

Question 4

Should all factories located inside major cities be shifted to the outskirts, far away from the main city area? Arguments: I. Yes, because shifting factories to the outskirts is an essential step for controlling urban air and noise pollution. II. No…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic urban planning question. The proposal is to shift factories from city centres to the outskirts. One argument supports this by citing pollution control, and the other opposes it by mentioning inconvenience to employees and their families. Both sides need to be evaluated. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Factories in cities should be shifted to the outskirts. Argument I: Yes, this is essential to reduce urban pollution. Argument II: No, because it will create serious inconvenience for employees and their families. We assume that both environmental health and social convenience are valid policy concerns. Concept / Approach: In these questions, it is possible for both arguments to be strong if each represents a real and important consequence. Shifting factories can significantly reduce pollution, but it can also increase commuting time and disturb social life of workers. Both effects matter to planners. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine argument I. Industrial activity inside crowded cities is a major source of air and noise pollution. Moving factories out can improve urban environment. Step 2: This argument is strong because it directly promotes better health and quality of life for city residents. Step 3: Examine argument II. If factories move far away, many workers may have to travel long distances or even shift housing, which is expensive and disruptive. Step 4: This is also a strong and realistic concern about social impact and workers welfare. Hence argument II is also strong. Verification / Alternative check: City planners often conduct impact assessments that include both environmental benefits and human costs. This shows that both types of arguments are taken seriously in real life. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that select only one argument as strong overlook either the environmental or the social dimension. The option that neither argument is strong is clearly incorrect, and the option that the effects cannot be judged is not correct because these are well understood issues. Common Pitfalls: Many students assume that if one argument is strong, the other must be weak. In policy questions, this is not always true, and both sides can carry weight at the same time. Final Answer: Thus, both arguments I and II are strong, and the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.

Question 5

Should computer knowledge be made a compulsory subject for all students at the secondary school level? Arguments: I. No, our immediate national need is basic food and employment for everyone, so we should not simply follow western education models. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question discusses whether computer knowledge should be compulsory in secondary schools. One argument opposes the idea by referring to basic needs like food, and the other supports it by linking computers to global competitiveness. You must determine which argument is strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Computer knowledge should be a compulsory subject at secondary level. Argument I: No, the priority is bread and jobs, not following western education models. Argument II: Yes, India needs computer educated children to compete internationally. We assume that education policy should prepare students for future economic and technological realities. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must be logically connected to the aim of school education. Modern education must equip learners with skills needed in a technology driven world. Simply stating that food and employment are priorities does not directly argue against computer education, because both basic needs and education can be pursued together. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument I. It contrasts basic needs with computers and warns against copying western models. Step 2: This does not actually show why computers should not be taught. Food security and computer education are not mutually exclusive. So argument I is weak. Step 3: Evaluate argument II. It directly connects compulsory computer education with India's ability to compete globally. Step 4: In a digital economy, computer literacy is indeed essential, so argument II is strong and relevant. Verification / Alternative check: Look at global trends: countries that invest in digital skills have better chances in technology sectors. This supports argument II strongly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The option that only argument I is strong is wrong because I does not address the core educational objective. The option that both are strong is wrong as they do not have equal merit. The option that neither is strong ignores the clear validity of argument II. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes overvalue emotional appeals like poverty without checking if they actually answer the question asked. Final Answer: Therefore, only argument II is strong, so the correct option is the one that selects argument II alone as strong.

Question 6

Should school education be made completely free in India? Arguments: I. Yes, because this is one of the most effective ways to improve the literacy rate in India. II. No, because making all school education free will add to the already heavy burden …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about making school education free in India. One argument supports the idea to improve literacy, and the other warns about increased financial burden on the Government. You must decide whether each argument is strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: School education should be made free. Argument I: Yes, this will help increase literacy rates. Argument II: No, it will put additional pressure on the Government budget. We assume that both literacy and fiscal responsibility are important policy goals. Concept / Approach: Strong arguments can exist on both sides of a socio economic policy. Argument I emphasises social benefits: more children can attend school when it is free. Argument II emphasises economic limitations: Government funds are limited and additional commitments may affect other sectors. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument I. Making school education free removes financial barriers for poor families, thereby promoting literacy. Step 2: This is a direct and realistic reason in favour of the proposal, so argument I is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument II. Education spending must come from tax revenues or borrowing. If everything is free, the Government budget may become severely stretched. Step 4: This is also a valid concern and therefore argument II is strong as well. Verification / Alternative check: Real world debates on universal free education always balance social justice and financial feasibility. That is exactly what these two arguments represent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that select only one argument ignore either the social or the financial dimension. The option that neither is strong is clearly wrong because both arguments tackle major aspects of the policy. The option that the economic impact cannot be judged is incorrect; we can at least see that expenditure will rise significantly. Common Pitfalls: Many students think there must be a single correct side in policy questions. In reality, exams often test your ability to see valid points on both sides. Final Answer: Hence, both arguments I and II are strong, so the correct option is the one that selects both arguments as strong.

Question 7

Should there be legal restrictions on the migration of people from one state to another within India? Arguments: 1. No, because every Indian citizen has the right to live in any part of the country and cannot be stopped from doing so. 2. Yes, becaus…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns internal migration within India. The issue is whether there should be restrictions on people moving from one state to another. One argument cites citizens rights, and the other mentions equitable distribution of resources. You must determine which argument is strong. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: There should be restrictions on migration between states in India. Argument 1: No, because every Indian has the right to live anywhere within the country. Argument 2: Yes, because restrictions can help distribute resources fairly across states. We assume that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement and residence for citizens. Concept / Approach: A strong argument should be based on fundamental principles like constitutional rights or clearly established cause and effect. Argument 1 directly refers to a core right of citizens. Argument 2 uses an uncertain and speculative claim that restricting migration will automatically balance resources, which is not necessarily true. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It correctly states that citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in India, subject to reasonable restrictions only in special cases. Step 2: This is a strong argument because it is grounded in constitutional principles. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It assumes that restricting migration will lead to equitable distribution of resources. In reality, resources depend on economic policies, governance and natural factors, not simply on where people live. Step 4: Hence, argument 2 is weak and not a convincing reason to restrict a basic freedom. Verification / Alternative check: You can cross check by asking whether any modern democracy uses migration restrictions primarily to balance resources. The answer is almost always no. Why Other Options Are Wrong: The option that only argument 2 is strong is wrong because 2 is speculative. The option that both are strong wrongly treats them as equally valid. The option that neither is strong is also wrong because argument 1 is clearly solid. The option that the impact cannot be judged is not correct because we can judge the strength of the reasoning given. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students get attracted to phrases like "equitable distribution" without checking if the mechanism suggested is realistic. Final Answer: Thus, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.

Question 8

Should the judiciary be completely independent of the executive in a democratic country like India? Arguments: 1. Yes, because an independent judiciary helps to curb any unlawful activities or misuse of power by the executive. 2. No, because if the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines the principle of separation of powers in a democracy. The issue is whether the judiciary should be independent of the executive. One argument focuses on controlling unlawful acts by the executive, and the other claims that independence would prevent bold decisions by the executive. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Judiciary should be independent of the executive. Argument 1: Yes, independence helps curb unlawful acts of the executive. Argument 2: No, independence will prevent the executive from taking bold measures. We assume that rule of law and checks and balances are important for good governance. Concept / Approach: In constitutional theory, an independent judiciary is essential to review executive actions and protect citizens rights. Argument 1 supports exactly this role. Argument 2 is vague and implies that bold actions necessarily conflict with judicial review, which is not a sound or acceptable reasoning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It correctly states that an independent judiciary can check the misuse of power by the executive. Step 2: This is central to democratic governance and is therefore a strong argument. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It suggests that the executive cannot take bold steps if the judiciary is independent, but bold steps that are lawful do not need to fear the courts. Step 4: Hence, argument 2 wrongly assumes that judicial independence is an obstacle to effective governance, making it weak. Verification / Alternative check: Look at stable democracies around the world. Most have independent judiciaries and yet their executives can act boldly within the framework of law. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that show argument 2 as strong or both as strong ignore constitutional principles. The option that neither is strong is wrong because argument 1 clearly expresses a core democratic value. The option that the relation cannot be judged is unnecessary here. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse speed of decision making with quality. Judicial checks may slow down some actions but protect citizens from arbitrary power. Final Answer: Therefore, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.

Question 9

Should India have no military force at all and rely only on the policy of non violence? Arguments: 1. No, because other countries in the world are unlikely to believe in non violence and India may face security threats. 2. Yes, because many Indians …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about national security and the idea of abolishing the military in favour of non violence. One argument warns that other countries may not follow non violence, and the other supports the idea simply because many Indians believe in it. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: India should have no military force at all. Argument 1: No, other countries may not believe in non violence, exposing India to danger. Argument 2: Yes, many Indians believe in non violence. We assume that defence forces are a major deterrent against external aggression. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must consider practical realities. While non violence is a noble principle, national defence depends on the behaviour of other countries also. It is not enough that one country believes in peace if others might attack. Argument 1 reflects this reality. Argument 2 is based only on internal belief and ignores external risks. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It highlights the risk that other nations may still use force, so India needs defence forces. Step 2: This is logically strong because national security cannot depend only on moral expectations. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It says that since many citizens believe in non violence, the country should abolish the military. Step 4: This ignores the behaviour of other states and the need for deterrence, so argument 2 is weak. Verification / Alternative check: Look at global practice: even countries that value peace maintain armed forces for defence. This supports the strength of argument 1. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that treat argument 2 as strong or both as strong fail to account for geopolitical realities. The option that neither is strong is wrong because argument 1 is clearly realistic. The option saying the security implications cannot be judged is also incorrect because basic reasoning about defence is possible. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes equate moral appeal with practical strength of an argument. In security matters, moral beliefs alone are insufficient. Final Answer: Hence, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.

Question 10

Should students take an active part in politics while they are studying? Arguments: 1. Yes, because participation in politics helps to inculcate the quality of leadership among students. 2. No, because students should focus on their studies and buil…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with students involvement in politics. One argument supports participation due to leadership development, while the other warns that politics may distract from studies and career building. Both sides may present strong reasoning. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Students should take part in politics. Argument 1: Yes, it develops leadership qualities. Argument 2: No, students should concentrate on studies and careers. We assume that both leadership skills and academic performance are important for young people. Concept / Approach: For such social issues, exam questions often have two strong yet opposing arguments. Political participation can indeed train students in leadership, organisation and public speaking. At the same time, excessive involvement can harm studies if not balanced carefully. Both are realistic concerns. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. Active politics provides practical experience in leadership, decision making and teamwork. Step 2: These skills are valuable, so argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. Student life is also meant for academic learning and professional preparation. Heavy political involvement may reduce time for study. Step 4: This is also a valid concern and therefore argument 2 is strong as well. Verification / Alternative check: Consider real campuses. Balanced student leaders manage both studies and politics, but many struggle. This shows that both arguments express real aspects of the issue. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that select only one argument ignore the other side of the real life situation. The option that neither argument is strong is wrong because both describe genuine and important effects. The option that the issue cannot be judged is also incorrect; we can judge the strength of each argument. Common Pitfalls: Students often think they must pick a side. In statement and argument questions, however, you only need to judge whether the arguments are strong, not which policy you personally support. Final Answer: Therefore, both arguments 1 and 2 are strong, and the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.

Question 11

Should government jobs that are located in rural areas carry more incentives than similar jobs in big cities? Arguments: 1. Yes, because additional incentives are essential for attracting government employees to work in rural areas. 2. No, because r…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns incentives for government employees working in rural areas. One argument says extra incentives are needed to attract staff, while the other claims rural life is already better and does not need additional rewards. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Government jobs in rural areas should have more incentives. Argument 1: Yes, incentives are essential to attract employees. Argument 2: No, rural areas are already cheaper and healthier, so no extra incentives are needed. We assume that vacancies in rural postings are often hard to fill. Concept / Approach: A strong argument is based on actual problems and realistic solutions. If employees avoid rural postings, incentives are a practical way to encourage them. Argument 2 simply assumes rural living is attractive without considering factors like lack of facilities, schools, hospitals and connectivity. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It directly addresses the staffing problem by suggesting financial or other incentives as a tool to attract people to rural posts. Step 2: This is a realistic administrative approach, so argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It claims rural areas are already cheaper and healthier, but ignores reasons why many employees still prefer urban jobs, such as better facilities and career growth. Step 4: Therefore, argument 2 is weak and does not convincingly oppose the need for incentives. Verification / Alternative check: In practice, governments often offer extra allowances for difficult or remote postings. This supports the reasoning in argument 1. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that treat argument 2 as strong overlook gaps in its reasoning. The option that both arguments are strong is wrong because they do not have equal merit. The option that neither is strong is incorrect as argument 1 clearly provides a sound reason. The option that we cannot judge from these arguments is unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes accept general statements like "rural life is healthy" at face value without checking if they address the real staffing problem. Final Answer: Thus, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.

Question 12

Should correspondence courses at the university level be discontinued in India? Arguments: I. Yes, because only direct interaction between teachers and students in college helps the total development of personality. II. No, because the demand for di…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The final question in this set is about correspondence courses at the university level. One argument supports discontinuing them to promote full personality development, while the other opposes discontinuation by pointing out that poor students need such options and that the demand for closure comes mainly from the elite. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Correspondence courses at the university level should be discontinued. Argument I: Yes, because only face to face college interaction truly develops personality. Argument II: No, because calls to discontinue these courses come mainly from elites who may not understand how poor students depend on them. We assume that higher education must balance quality of learning with accessibility for economically weaker sections. Concept / Approach: Argument I stresses the qualitative advantage of regular college education: interaction, participation and campus life. Argument II stresses equity and access: many working or poor students can only study through correspondence. Both points are relevant to the policy decision and therefore can be strong simultaneously. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate argument I. Regular classroom teaching allows direct interaction, discussion and extracurricular activities that help personality development. Step 2: This is a strong argument in favour of discontinuing purely correspondence based models, at least from a quality perspective. Step 3: Evaluate argument II. It highlights that correspondence courses allow poor and working students to study while living far from universities or while working. Step 4: This is also a strong argument against total discontinuation, because removing such programmes could deprive many students of any higher education opportunity. Verification / Alternative check: Real world policy discussions on distance education recognise both quality concerns and access benefits. This supports the idea that both arguments raise valid points. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that choose only one argument as strong overlook either the quality aspect or the access aspect. The option that neither argument is strong is clearly wrong. The option that the value of correspondence courses cannot be judged is not correct, because we can judge both pros and cons from these arguments. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that if one argument favours discontinuation, the other must be weak. However, exams often present policy issues where both sides have legitimate concerns. Final Answer: Therefore, both arguments I and II are strong, and the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.

Question 13

Statement: Should there be a complete ban on the import of sugar into India? Arguments: I. No. The current production of sugar within India is not sufficient to meet the domestic requirement. II. No. Continuing imports will keep sugar prices under c…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question belongs to the “statement and argument” type. The task is to decide whether each argument in favour of or against the statement is a strong argument. A strong argument is directly related to the statement, fact-based or logically sound, and significant enough to influence a decision. Here the statement asks whether India should completely ban the import of sugar. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should there be a complete ban on the import of sugar into India? Argument I: No. The current production of sugar within India is not sufficient to meet the domestic requirement. Argument II: No. Continuing imports will keep sugar prices under control because the total supply will remain adequate. We assume normal economic conditions where shortage raises prices and adequate supply helps price stability. Concept / Approach: We must judge each argument independently on three key aspects: relevance to the question, logical soundness and practical importance. An argument may be strong even if it is against the statement, as long as it gives a serious and realistic reason. Emotional, vague or personal-opinion arguments are treated as weak. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: If domestic production is not sufficient to meet the requirement, banning imports would create a shortage of sugar in the market. A shortage of an essential commodity has serious economic and social consequences such as black marketing, hoarding and public dissatisfaction. Therefore Argument I gives a direct, logical and important reason against a complete ban. It is a strong argument. Evaluate Argument II: It says that allowing imports will keep prices under control because supply will be adequate. Price stability for a basic commodity like sugar is a major policy concern. Adequate supply is a standard economic tool for controlling prices. Argument II is again directly related to the policy decision and is logically sound and practically significant. Thus Argument II is also a strong argument. Verification / Alternative check: Both arguments focus on consequences of banning imports: possible shortage and impact on prices. Neither relies on personal preference or extreme assumptions. Both would be considered by policy makers when deciding on import bans. Hence both arguments satisfy the criteria for strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the genuine concern about price control raised in Argument II. Saying only Argument II is strong ignores the serious issue of inadequate domestic production raised in Argument I. Claiming neither argument is strong is incorrect because both are clearly relevant and logical. Stating that the strength cannot be determined is wrong because enough information is given to see that both arguments are meaningful and policy-relevant. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to think there can be only one strong argument. In “yes/no” statement-and-argument questions, both a “yes” and a “no” argument can be strong, or two “no” arguments can be strong, if both give serious reasons. Another pitfall is to confuse “I personally agree” with “this is a strong argument”. Strength is about logical weight, not personal opinion. Final Answer: Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore, the correct option is If both I and II are strong.

Question 14

Statement: Should teenagers be denied access to the internet altogether? Arguments: I. Yes. Many children, especially teenagers, are often found accessing pornographic content online. II. No. Denying internet access would also deny them access to a …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines how to evaluate arguments about restricting teenagers’ access to the internet. In modern life the internet is both a source of risk and a rich source of information. A strong argument must show balanced thinking, focus on the core issue (whether access should be denied), and be realistic and practical rather than extreme or vague. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should teenagers be denied access to the internet? Argument I: Yes. Many children, especially teenagers, are found accessing pornographic content online. Argument II: No. Denying access to the internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information; instead the access may be controlled. Concept / Approach: We judge each argument on relevance, logic and practicality. Strong arguments in such questions are usually balanced and avoid extreme all-or-nothing measures when better alternatives exist. The fact that misuse occurs is important, but we must see whether a complete ban is the only or best solution suggested by the argument. Step-by-Step Solution: Consider Argument I: It highlights a genuine concern that many teenagers might access harmful or pornographic content. However, it immediately jumps from the existence of misuse to the conclusion that a total denial of internet access is justified. It does not explore more balanced alternatives such as parental control tools, content filters, education about safe browsing or supervised access. Because it proposes an extreme solution without considering more practical measures, Argument I is not considered a strong argument in the exam sense. Consider Argument II: It points out that the internet also provides a lot of useful information and learning opportunities for teenagers. It further suggests a middle path: do not deny access but control and supervise it. This is a realistic and policy-relevant approach because it recognises both the benefits and risks of internet use. Therefore, Argument II is a strong argument. Verification / Alternative check: From a reasoning perspective, authorities and parents rarely opt for complete denial of technology when control and education are possible. Argument II clearly mirrors this real-world reasoning. Argument I, although based on a real problem, overgeneralises “most teenagers” and supports a harsh solution, which exam patterns typically treat as weak or one-sided. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the overreaction and failure to consider alternatives. Claiming that both arguments are strong suggests that an extreme ban and a balanced control approach are equally good, which is not logically consistent in this context. Saying neither argument is strong ignores the well-reasoned and practical nature of Argument II. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to equate “serious problem mentioned” with “strong argument”. Simply pointing to a problem is not enough; the solution proposed must also be reasonable. Another pitfall is to vote for any argument that appears strict or moralistic, even when it is impractical. In exam logic, moderation and feasibility usually indicate stronger arguments. Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong. Hence the correct option is If only argument II is strong.

Question 15

Statement: Should there be only a single uniform rate of income tax, irrespective of the level of income? Arguments: I. Yes. A uniform rate will substantially reduce the work of officials in the income tax department. II. No. A uniform rate will red…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about tax policy and asks whether a single uniform rate of income tax should apply to all income levels. A strong argument must address core policy goals such as fairness, revenue generation and practical feasibility. Minor administrative conveniences alone are usually not enough to justify a major structural change like altering the tax rate system. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should there be only a uniform rate of income tax, regardless of how high or low the income is? Argument I: Yes. A uniform rate will substantially reduce the workload of income tax officials. Argument II: No. A uniform rate will reduce government tax collection to a large extent. Concept / Approach: We evaluate each argument by asking: does it talk about an important effect of the policy, is it logically reasonable, and is it directly related to the decision? Arguments about efficiency or revenue can be strong. However, arguments that focus on a minor convenience and ignore larger consequences become weak in comparison. Step-by-Step Solution: Examine Argument I: It claims that officials’ workload will be substantially reduced by a single uniform rate. While reduced administrative complexity is a benefit, tax systems are designed primarily to raise revenue fairly and effectively, not to make life easiest for officials. The argument does not consider fairness between rich and poor taxpayers or the effect on revenue. Therefore, Argument I focuses only on a secondary aspect and is not strong enough to justify or oppose the policy on its own. Examine Argument II: It states that a uniform rate will reduce government tax collection to a large extent. Tax collection is a primary objective of an income tax system. A substantial reduction in revenue would directly affect government spending on public services and development. If a uniform rate significantly reduces total tax revenue, this becomes a strong reason against such a change. Thus, Argument II is clearly a strong argument against the proposal. Verification / Alternative check: In progressive tax systems, higher incomes are usually taxed at higher rates. If this is replaced by a single lower rate acceptable to lower and middle incomes, the contribution from the highest income groups usually drops sharply. That matches the essence of Argument II and shows why it is serious and relevant. Administrative simplification from Argument I, while beneficial, does not outweigh major revenue loss concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only Argument I as strong ignores the central importance of government revenue. Saying both arguments are strong would incorrectly treat a minor administrative advantage as equally important as a major loss in revenue. Claiming that neither is strong is wrong because Argument II clearly addresses a key policy impact. Saying the impact cannot be assessed ignores the straightforward logic behind revenue reduction under a uniform rate. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to be impressed by the word “substantially” in Argument I and treat workload reduction as the main goal. Another pitfall is to forget that tax policy decisions must consider fairness and revenue first. Students should learn to distinguish between primary objectives (like revenue and equity) and secondary considerations (like convenience). Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct option is If only argument II is strong.

Question 16

A New York publisher has estimated that 50,000 to 60,000 people in the United States want an anthology that includes the complete works of William Shakespeare. Scholars explain this renewed interest by saying that Shakespeare's psychological insight…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a short reading-comprehension and inference question. You are given a paragraph about demand for an anthology of Shakespeare's complete works and a scholarly explanation for the renewed interest. You must choose the statement that is best supported directly by what is said in the paragraph, without adding extra assumptions or exaggerations. Given Data / Assumptions: A New York publisher estimates that 50,000 to 60,000 people in the United States want an anthology containing Shakespeare's complete works. The passage asks why there is a renewed interest in Shakespeare. Scholars say that his psychological insights into both male and female characters are amazing even today. We treat all statements in the passage as true for the purpose of this question. Concept / Approach: The right answer must be a logical consequence of the information given, not a guess or an over-interpretation. We look for an option that closely matches the scholars’ explanation: that people are interested because his characters are psychologically rich and still relevant. Any option that adds new facts not mentioned in the paragraph, or that changes “people in the United States” to some narrower group, is suspect. Step-by-Step Solution: The paragraph links the demand for an anthology to a “renewed interest in Shakespeare”. It then directly answers the question “what accounts for this renewed interest?” by citing scholars. The scholars’ explanation is that Shakespeare's psychological insights into male and female characters are amazing even today. So, the reason for people’s present-day interest is the depth and realism of his characters. Option B states exactly this idea: people even today are interested in Shakespeare because of his characters. Therefore, Option B is best supported by the paragraph. Verification / Alternative check: Check each other option against the text. The passage does not compare Shakespeare's characters with all fictional characters today, so we cannot say they are “more interesting” than modern characters. It does not say that scholars are actually compiling an anthology. It mentions the United States as a whole, not just New York, so singling out New Yorkers is not justified. Finally, calling Shakespeare a “psychiatrist” is an exaggeration beyond the text. Only Option B stays close to the original wording and intent of the paragraph. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A adds a comparison (more interesting than today's fictional characters) that is never mentioned. Option C changes “publisher estimated demand” into “scholars are putting together an anthology”, which the passage does not say. Option D wrongly narrows the interest to “New Yorkers”, whereas the demand is said to be in the United States generally. Option E incorrectly elevates Shakespeare to the status of a psychiatrist, which is not implied; only his insights are praised. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to choose an option that sounds impressive or plausible in general but is not directly supported by the passage. Students also sometimes focus on one word, such as “New York”, and incorrectly think the main point is geographical. Always return to the core explanation given by the text and match it closely. Final Answer: The paragraph best supports the statement that people today are interested in Shakespeare's work because of his realistic and insightful characters.

Question 17

Mrs Carson took a taxi to meet three friends for lunch. Excited to see them, she accidentally left her tote bag in the taxi as it pulled away. The friends quickly tried to memorise the license plate so they could later identify the taxi when calling…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a typical “judgement and observation” puzzle. Several people see the same license plate very briefly and each recalls it with small differences. You are asked to judge which license plate is most likely to be the actual one. The key skill is to use knowledge of how license plates are usually designed and to recognise likely human errors in quickly reading letters and numbers. Given Data / Assumptions: Mrs Carson and her three friends see the taxi's license plate only for a moment. They recall license plates that look very similar but not identical. Possible license plates given as options include combinations such as JYK 12L, JXK 12I, JXX 12L and JXK 12L. We assume standard English letters and digits on plates; certain letters like I are often avoided because they resemble digits. Concept / Approach: People commonly misread or misremember characters that look similar, such as X and Y, or I and 1, when they are under time pressure. Also, some license plate systems avoid using confusing letters like I and O. Therefore, the most likely true plate is the one that looks regular and that can be obtained by making small, plausible reading mistakes from it, rather than a plate that contains unusual or confusing characters itself. Step-by-Step Solution: Look at the pattern of all given options: they all share J as the first letter and 12 as the digits, and most end with L. The main disagreements are in the second and third letters (Y versus X versus K) and in one case, the last character being I instead of L. Real license plate systems often avoid the letter I, because it can be confused with the digit 1. Thus JXK 12I is less likely to be the actual plate. JXX 12L has a double X, which is visually striking and would be relatively easy to remember correctly, making it less likely that all friends would misreport it in different ways. JXK 12L follows a simple pattern: three distinct letters followed by two digits and a final letter L, and does not contain visually confusing characters. From such a plate, it is easy to see how someone could misread X as Y and L as I or vice versa, producing the other variants. Therefore JXK 12L is the most regular and plausible original plate. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine JXK 12L as the true plate. A quick glance could make one friend remember JYK 12L (confusing X and Y). Another friend could recall JXK 12I (confusing L with I). A third might remember JXX 12L (misreading K as X). All these are realistic one-character errors that could easily arise from JXK 12L. Starting from any other option, it is harder to explain all the variants as simply and plausibly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: JYK 12L requires multiple less common confusions to generate the other options. JXK 12I contains the confusing letter I, which many plate systems avoid; it is more likely to be a misread L than the true character. JXX 12L is visually distinct; if that were correct, it is less likely that all observers would misremember it differently. JYK 12I combines both Y and I, increasing the chance that it is itself a misreading of a simpler original plate like JXK 12L. Common Pitfalls: One common mistake is to assume that the answer must be the plate that seems most “unusual” and therefore memorable. In such puzzles, the opposite is often true: the real plate is simple and regular, while the unusual ones arise from misreadings. Another pitfall is to ignore real-world patterns of license plate design, such as avoiding ambiguous characters like I and O. Final Answer: The most likely license plate number of the taxi is JXK 12L.

Question 18

Statement: Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary or Legislative Assembly elections in India? Arguments: 1. Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 years lose their dynamism and will power. 2. No. Life expecta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement-and-argument question deals with the sensitive issue of age limits for holding public office. The statement proposes setting an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting elections. The two arguments take opposite positions. Our task is not to decide our personal opinion but to judge whether each argument is logically strong and relevant to the policy decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary or Legislative Assembly elections? Argument 1: Yes. Generally, people above 65 years lose their dynamism and will power. Argument 2: No. Life span has increased and many people remain physically and mentally active even up to 80 years of age. In this pattern of questions, “Either 1 or 2 is strong” is used when both arguments are individually strong but support opposite decisions. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must be directly related to the issue and must present a serious, realistic consideration. It does not have to be based on precise statistics, but it should reflect widely observed trends. When one argument offers a reasonable reason in favour and another offers a reasonable reason against the same proposal, both can be considered strong, and we say “either” is strong depending on the value one emphasises more. Step-by-Step Solution: Consider Argument 1: It says that, in general, people above 65 tend to lose dynamism and will power. For demanding roles such as legislator or member of Parliament, dynamism, energy and strong will are important qualities. Even though this statement is a generalisation and does not apply to every individual, it reflects a practical concern about health and energy at advanced ages. Thus, Argument 1 is a reasonably strong argument in favour of an upper age limit. Consider Argument 2: It points out that life expectancy has increased, and many people remain active and capable even up to 80 years. This is also a realistic observation. If people stay healthy and mentally sharp longer, then an automatic cut-off at 65 may unnecessarily exclude experienced leaders. Thus, Argument 2 is a strong argument against imposing a rigid age limit. Verification / Alternative check: Both arguments highlight important aspects of the same issue: quality of representation versus respect for increased longevity and capability. Neither is frivolous or off-topic. Since they lead to opposite conclusions but are individually reasonable, the exam convention is to say that either of them can be considered a strong argument, depending on the side one supports. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument 1 is strong ignores the valid point about increasing active life span in Argument 2. Saying only Argument 2 is strong ignores genuine concerns about energy and dynamism at older ages that Argument 1 raises. Claiming neither is strong is incorrect because both deal directly with the central issue and are realistic. Saying both are simultaneously strong (as a separate option) would not match the usual coding pattern of such yes/no argument questions where “either 1 or 2” represents two opposing yet strong arguments. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that if arguments contradict each other, one must be weak. In logical reasoning tests, however, it is common for two opposing arguments to both be considered strong if each is grounded in real-world reasoning. Another pitfall is to confuse personal beliefs with the technical definition of a strong argument. Here we judge structure and relevance, not which side we personally like. Final Answer: Both arguments 1 and 2 are individually strong but lead to opposite conclusions, so the correct choice is Either 1 or 2 is strong.

Question 19

Statement: Should India create a huge strategic oil reserve in order to handle difficult situations in the future? Arguments: 1. No. There is no need to block huge amounts of foreign exchange and keep the money idle. 2. Yes. A strategic reserve will…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with a strategic economic and security decision: whether India should invest heavily in a large oil reserve. One argument worries about tying up foreign exchange, while the other stresses protection from future price shocks. Our goal is to judge the strength of each argument, not to choose actual policy. Both sides involve real trade-offs between present cost and future security. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve to face difficult situations in the future? Argument 1: No. It will block huge amounts of foreign exchange and keep that money idle. Argument 2: Yes. It will help India withstand shocks of sudden rises in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances. We treat the statement as a policy question and the arguments as possible considerations. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must present a serious and relevant consequence of the decision. Here, Argument 1 emphasises the economic cost and opportunity cost of locking up foreign exchange reserves in oil stockpiles. Argument 2 emphasises energy security and stability in crises. Both are realistic and often debated in economic and strategic planning, so each can be strong in its own direction. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument 1: Creating a huge oil reserve requires India to purchase and store large quantities of imported oil, which uses significant foreign exchange. Those funds could alternatively be used for development projects, infrastructure or other investments that yield returns. The argument claims that money locked in oil stockpiles is “idle”, highlighting an opportunity cost. This is a real and relevant economic concern. Therefore, Argument 1 is a reasonably strong argument against creating an excessively large reserve. Evaluate Argument 2: Oil price shocks or supply disruptions due to wars, political instability or natural disasters can severely harm India's economy. A strategic reserve can keep domestic supply stable for some time, preventing sudden spikes in fuel prices and protecting essential services. This is a well-known reason why many countries maintain strategic petroleum reserves. Thus, Argument 2 is also a strong argument in favour of creating such a reserve. Verification / Alternative check: Both arguments align with real-world debates: economists and policymakers often balance the cost of tying up capital in stockpiles against the insurance value of having reserves in a crisis. Neither argument is trivial or unrelated. Since they support opposite sides but are individually strong, the exam convention marks this as “either 1 or 2 is strong”. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument 1 is strong ignores legitimate national security and price stability concerns. Claiming only Argument 2 is strong ignores the real burden of locking up scarce foreign exchange. Stating that neither argument is strong is incorrect because both reflect serious policy considerations. Saying both are simultaneously strong (as a separate code) does not match the pattern for yes/no arguments where “either” is used for two opposing strong points. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think only one argument can be strong in these questions. They may automatically dismiss cost-based concerns or, on the other hand, ignore long-term security benefits. Real policy decisions usually involve balancing such competing strong arguments. Recognising that both sides can present valid points is essential for mastering statement-and-argument problems. Final Answer: Both arguments 1 and 2 are individually strong but point in opposite directions, so the correct choice is Either 1 or 2 is strong.

Question 20

Statement: Should individuals or industries that hold treasures of national significance, such as Nobel Prizes or similar awards, hand them over to the central government for safe custody? Arguments: 1. Yes. They do not have enough resources to prot…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement-and-argument question is about who should safeguard items of national importance, such as Nobel Prize medals or other major awards. One argument emphasises better security under central government control, while the other stresses individual ownership rights. We need to assess whether each argument is strong, meaning relevant, realistic and significant to the decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should individuals or industries having treasures of national significance hand them over to the central government for safe custody? Argument 1: Yes. They do not have enough resources to protect them properly. Argument 2: No. These items belong to the individuals or industries that won them, so they should remain in their custody. Such treasures are assumed to be unique, valuable and culturally important. Concept / Approach: A strong argument may focus on national interest, security, fairness or legal rights. Here, Argument 1 focuses on security and resource limitations, while Argument 2 focuses on ownership and property rights. Both aspects are central to the question. When two opposing arguments are each individually reasonable, the exam usually codes the correct answer as “either 1 or 2 is strong”. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument 1: It claims that individuals or companies may lack the resources needed to protect nationally significant treasures. Security for such items may require advanced systems, insurance and professional handling, which might be difficult for private parties. Since loss, theft or damage of such treasures would affect not just the owner but the nation's heritage, centralised safe custody could be justified. Hence, Argument 1 is a strong argument in favour of handing them over to the government. Evaluate Argument 2: It highlights that such treasures are legally the property of those who earned them. Property rights are a fundamental principle in most legal systems; forcibly taking such items away could be seen as unfair or a violation of those rights. Many individuals and industries may have sufficient means to protect their own assets responsibly. Therefore, Argument 2 is also a strong argument against compulsory government custody. Verification / Alternative check: Both arguments touch core issues: national protection of heritage and respect for private ownership. Neither is trivial or unrelated. It is entirely possible for a reasonable person to support either strong security under state care or strong property rights with voluntary arrangements for security. Thus, both arguments can be considered strong, although they support opposite answers. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only Argument 1 as strong ignores the important principle of private ownership raised by Argument 2. Choosing only Argument 2 as strong overlooks legitimate concerns about the capability of individuals to secure high-value national treasures. Claiming neither is strong is clearly incorrect because both arguments focus on central aspects of the issue. Treating “both 1 and 2 are strong” as a separate code does not match the usual pattern in yes/no questions where “either 1 or 2” indicates that both are individually strong but mutually opposed. Common Pitfalls: Students may believe that if one argument supports national interest it automatically overrules property rights, or vice versa. In reasoning questions, however, both can be valid perspectives. The goal is not to pick a winner but to recognise when more than one side has strong, logically grounded points. Final Answer: Both arguments 1 and 2 are individually strong but contradict each other, so the correct choice is Either 1 or 2 is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions