Question 1

Statement: Should one year of army training be made compulsory for all Indian citizens? Arguments: I. No. The costs of providing such training will be prohibitive and one full year of productive labour will be lost. II. Yes. Army training helps to d…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about mandatory national military service. The statement proposes one year of compulsory army training for all Indian citizens. Argument I opposes this based on cost and loss of labour, while Argument II supports it for its benefits to citizenship and discipline. We must judge each argument independently for strength, not choose which policy we personally prefer. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens? Argument I: No. The training costs will be prohibitive and one year of labour will be lost. Argument II: Yes. Army training helps to make better citizens by developing discipline and responsibility. We assume that the state must consider both economic costs and social benefits when making such a decision. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must be relevant, realistic and significant. Argument I focuses on economic and productivity costs, which are central in policy-making. Argument II emphasises social and civic benefits, which are also important. If both positions present real trade-offs, both can be regarded as strong arguments, even though they support opposite conclusions. Step-by-Step Solution: Examine Argument I: Providing one full year of army training for an entire population would require enormous spending on infrastructure, instructors, equipment, food and accommodation. Additionally, people would be taken away from regular jobs, studies or other productive activities for that year, meaning a loss of economic output. These are major practical concerns that any government must consider before introducing compulsory military service. Thus, Argument I is a strong argument against the proposal. Examine Argument II: Army training usually includes physical fitness, discipline, teamwork, respect for rules and a sense of responsibility towards the nation. Many countries that use conscription argue that it strengthens national unity and produces citizens who better understand defence and civic duties. These are substantial social benefits, especially for a diverse country where shared values and discipline are important. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in favour of the proposal. Verification / Alternative check: In real-world debates, both kinds of arguments appear frequently: critics emphasise costs and economic disruption, while supporters highlight discipline, character building and national integration. Neither argument is superficial or off-topic. That is exactly the pattern of a question where both arguments are considered strong within exam logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the real civic and social benefits of training mentioned in Argument II. Saying only Argument II is strong disregards major economic constraints and opportunity costs. Claiming that neither is strong is clearly wrong because both address central issues involved in such a policy. Saying the strength cannot be judged from the statement is incorrect, since general knowledge about costs and benefits of conscription is sufficient to see that both arguments are substantial. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that because two arguments oppose each other, only one can be strong. Another common mistake is to favour whichever side appears patriotic while ignoring hard economic realities, or to focus only on financial cost and dismiss social benefits as “soft”. In exam reasoning, both types of considerations are valid and can coexist as strong arguments on opposite sides. Final Answer: Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore, the correct option is if both I and II are strong.

Question 2

Statement: Should religion be banned? Arguments: 1. Yes. Religion develops fanaticism in people. 2. No. Religion also binds people together and can promote social cohesion.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question touches a sensitive topic: whether religion itself should be banned. The exam is not asking you to advocate real-world bans, but to evaluate the logical strength of arguments for and against the statement. One argument points to the risk of fanaticism, while the other emphasises the positive role of religion in binding people together. We must treat this purely as an abstract reasoning exercise, not as advice for real policy. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should religion be banned? Argument 1: Yes. It develops fanaticism in people. Argument 2: No. Religion binds people together. We assume that religion can, in different contexts, sometimes lead to conflict and sometimes promote unity. Concept / Approach: A strong argument is one that raises a significant, relevant concern. It does not have to cover all aspects of the issue, but must highlight an important possible consequence. Here, Argument 1 refers to extremism and fanaticism, which are real concerns, while Argument 2 mentions social cohesion and unity, which are also real observed effects. Both perspectives can be considered strong in the context of a reasoning test, even though they support opposite conclusions. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument 1: It says that religion develops fanaticism in people. In many parts of the world, conflicts have been associated with religious extremism when beliefs are misused or taken to violent extremes. Because fanaticism can lead to division and even violence, this is a serious concern. However, this argument focuses on the negative potential of religion rather than its role in people's lives overall. Evaluate Argument 2: It says religion binds people together. Religions often build communities, provide shared values, festivals and support structures, and can create a strong sense of belonging. This contributes to social cohesion and mutual support among believers. Thus, Argument 2 highlights a major positive role of religion in society. Both arguments refer to real and important effects; they are individually strong but point in opposite directions. Verification / Alternative check: In many societies, there is evidence of both religious harmony and religious conflict. Therefore, both the risk of fanaticism and the power of religion to unite people are genuine considerations. Since the question uses the standard yes/no pattern without giving further data, it is reasonable to regard both as strong arguments, leading to the coding “either 1 or 2 is strong”. This does not mean endorsing a ban; it only reflects that both sides present substantial reasons. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument 1 is strong ignores the widely observed positive community role of religion. Saying only Argument 2 is strong ignores real-world problems created by religious extremism in some contexts. Claiming neither is strong is incorrect, as both refer to major social phenomena. Treating both 1 and 2 as simultaneously strong in a separate code does not match the usual exam convention for yes/no argument questions, where “either 1 or 2” is used for two opposing yet strong arguments. Common Pitfalls: Because the subject is sensitive, students may let personal beliefs influence their judgement of argument strength. In reasoning tests, however, you should focus on whether arguments are realistic and relevant. Another pitfall is assuming that recognising negative effects of something automatically justifies a total ban, or that acknowledging positive effects means ignoring all risks. Logic questions often expect you to see that complex issues can have strong arguments on both sides. 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 3

Statement: Should the government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports events? Arguments: I. Yes. This money can instead be utilised for the welfare of the poor. II. No. If such spending is stopped, sportspersons will be frustr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a statement-and-argument question that asks you to analyse whether the government should stop spending large amounts of money on international sports events. Two arguments are given, one favouring and the other opposing the statement. Your task is to identify which argument is strong, meaning that it is relevant, logical and significant enough to influence policy decisions. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should the government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports? Argument I: Yes. This money can be used for the welfare of the poor. Argument II: No. Sportspersons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure if the spending stops. We assume sports funding currently supports participation in international events and that the country also has social welfare needs. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must be directly related to the statement, realistic, and focused on major consequences. Simply claiming that money could help the poor does not automatically justify cutting any particular spending unless a clear, specific link is shown. On the other hand, if an argument explains how the core purpose of that spending would be harmed, it is generally stronger. Step-by-Step Solution: Examine Argument I: It says that money diverted from international sports could be used for the poor. Helping the poor is certainly an important objective, but this argument is vague and generic. The same reasoning could be used to stop spending on many other essential areas such as health, education or infrastructure. It does not analyse the specific role of sports spending or balanced budgeting; therefore it is considered weak in this exam setting. Examine Argument II: It focuses on the direct consequence for sportspersons and the sports sector. International spending gives athletes exposure, competition experience and opportunities to raise a country’s profile. If funding is entirely stopped, the international performance and motivation of sportspersons will suffer, which is a serious and specific consequence. Hence Argument II is realistic, directly linked to the statement, and is treated as a strong argument. Verification / Alternative check: Public expenditure decisions normally balance many sectors: welfare, education, defence, sports and others. Argument I uses a broad slogan (“give money to the poor”) without explaining why sports should be singled out. Argument II, however, explains a core impact of cutting this particular spending. Therefore, only Argument II meets the criteria for strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Both arguments cannot be equally strong because Argument I is too general and could apply to nearly any spending. Saying neither is strong ignores the clear, concrete consequence mentioned in Argument II. Claiming that the strength cannot be evaluated is incorrect; the information given is enough to judge them. Common Pitfalls: Students often treat any mention of the poor as automatically strong. In reasoning questions, you must look for specific, policy-focused logic, not just emotionally appealing statements. Here, the targeted, practical concern for sports development in Argument II makes it stronger than the broad claim in Argument I. Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong. Therefore the correct choice is Only argument II is strong.

Question 4

A statement is given, followed by three possible inferences. Consider the statement as true and decide which inferences follow. Statement: Japan will open its doors to about two lakh (200,000) IT professionals from India and will issue them green ca…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an inference-based logical reasoning question. You are given a factual statement about Japan inviting Indian IT professionals and asked which inferences logically follow. The key is to use only the information provided, without adding assumptions that go beyond the statement. A valid inference must be a natural and necessary consequence of the given facts, not just a guess that might be true. Given Data / Assumptions: Japan plans to open its doors to about two lakh IT professionals from India. Japan will issue green cards to these professionals so they can settle in Japan. The stated purpose is to support Japan's rapidly expanding IT infrastructure. Shigeki Maeda, an executive vice president of a Japanese government body (JETRO), is the source of this information. Concept / Approach: We test each inference against the statement: Does the statement clearly support the idea that there is a shortage of IT professionals in Japan? Does it say anything comparing the talent and hard work of Indian professionals to those from other countries? Does it support the claim that Japan's IT industry is growing very fast? We must select only those inferences that are strongly justified by the text. Step-by-Step Solution: Inference I: “There is a dearth of IT professionals in Japan.” Japan is inviting a large number of IT professionals from abroad and giving them green cards to settle. This suggests that Japan's domestic supply of IT professionals is not sufficient to meet demand, which indicates a shortage or dearth. Therefore, Inference I reasonably follows. Inference II: “IT professionals from India are way more talented and hardworking than professionals from other countries.” The statement does say Japan is inviting IT professionals from India, but it does not compare them to professionals from other countries in terms of talent or hard work. Japan's choice could be due to many factors, such as existing ties, cost, availability or skill sets, but none are explicitly stated. Hence, Inference II does not necessarily follow and is too strong. Inference III: “Japan's IT industry is growing by leaps and bounds every year.” The statement clearly mentions “rapidly expanding IT infrastructure.” If the infrastructure is rapidly expanding, it is fair to infer that the IT industry is growing fast. Thus, Inference III follows from the given statement. Verification / Alternative check: Re-reading the statement confirms that the only explicit reasons given are expansion of IT infrastructure and the invitation of many Indian IT professionals. There is no comparative statement about professionals from other countries. Therefore, only Inferences I and III are solidly supported. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that include Inference II are wrong because the text never compares Indian IT professionals with those from other countries. The option “Only III follows” ignores the clear implication that inviting so many foreign workers reflects a shortage in the host country. Saying none of the inferences follow contradicts the explicit mention of rapid expansion of IT infrastructure and the clear implication of a domestic shortfall. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is over-interpreting praise or preference as proof of superiority. Just because Japan invites Indian IT professionals does not mean they are proven superior to all others. Another pitfall is ignoring the obvious link between “rapidly expanding infrastructure” and a rapidly growing industry. Final Answer: Both Inference I and Inference III follow. Therefore, the correct option is Both I and III follow.

Question 5

A statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong. Statement: Should very revealing dresses be banned? Arguments: 1. Yes, such dresses disturb people and may lead to abuse. 2. No, wearing clothes of one's choice i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a statement-and-argument problem about whether very revealing dresses should be banned. The first argument focuses on possible social disturbance and abuse, while the second argument highlights the fundamental right to choose one's clothing. We must judge which argument is strong from a logical and policy perspective, not from personal moral beliefs. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should very revealing dresses be banned? Argument 1: Yes. They disturb people and may lead to abuse. Argument 2: No. Choosing what to wear is a fundamental right of individuals. Assume society has legal frameworks protecting both public order and personal liberty. Concept / Approach: A strong argument is: Directly related to the statement. Logically sound and realistic. Important enough that policymakers would genuinely consider it. Arguments based on vague, unmeasurable effects or on blaming victims rather than wrongdoers are treated as weak. Arguments invoking clearly recognised legal or constitutional principles are usually strong if stated appropriately. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument 1: It says revealing dresses “disturb people and create abuse”. This is vague: what kind of disturbance is meant is not clearly specified, and the term “create abuse” could wrongly suggest that clothing causes abusive behaviour instead of holding offenders responsible. Moreover, the argument jumps directly to banning rather than considering less extreme measures like codes in specific workplaces or awareness campaigns. Because it is imprecise, somewhat one-sided, and does not propose a balanced solution, Argument 1 is considered weak. Evaluate Argument 2: It states that wearing clothes of one's own choice is a fundamental right of the individual. Personal liberty and freedom of expression, including dress, are widely recognised in democratic societies, subject to reasonable restrictions in limited contexts. A blanket ban on “too revealing” dresses would be a serious restriction of individual freedom and is therefore justified only by very strong evidence of harm. Thus, Argument 2 is directly tied to an important constitutional and human-rights principle and is a strong argument against a general ban. Verification / Alternative check: If a government considered such a ban, the most serious questions would be: Does it violate basic freedoms? Are there less restrictive alternatives? Argument 2 clearly addresses this core issue of fundamental rights. Argument 1 does not clarify why the disturbance mentioned cannot be addressed through law enforcement, education or context-specific dress codes instead of an outright ban. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying both arguments are strong would incorrectly treat a vague, general claim as equal to a well-founded rights-based argument. Saying either 1 or 2 is strong suggests that both are individually strong but mutually exclusive, which is not the case here; only Argument 2 meets the criteria. Claiming that neither is strong ignores the clear legal and ethical weight behind Argument 2. Common Pitfalls: Learners often mistake emotional or moralistic statements for strong reasoning. In exams, you must look beyond emotional tone to see whether the argument gives a clear, practical and justifiable reason. Appeals to fundamental rights and legal principles almost always carry strong weight when the proposed policy is an outright ban. Final Answer: Only Argument 2 is strong. Therefore the correct option is Only argument 2 is strong.

Question 6

Each question below consists of a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which argument is strong. Statement: Is global warming a real threat to the world? Arguments: I. Yes, it leads to serious consequences such as sea level …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question asks whether global warming is a real threat and presents two arguments. A strong argument must be consistent with widely accepted evidence or reasoning and should give a meaningful basis on which to decide the issue. You are not debating scientific details but judging which argument is reasoned and which is dismissive or unsupported. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Is global warming a real threat? Argument I: Yes. It causes consequences such as rising sea levels, extreme heat, wildfire risk, drought and water-supply issues. Argument II: No. Global warming is merely a misconception created by some people. We assume that mainstream scientific understanding recognises climate change and global warming as serious environmental concerns. Concept / Approach: A strong argument should: Be specific and explain why the statement should be accepted or rejected. Be in line with credible information or at least plausible reasoning. Avoid sweeping, unsupported denials. Among these two arguments, one cites specific consequences consistent with scientific reports, while the other simply dismisses global warming without evidence. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It states that global warming leads to sea level rise, extreme heat, higher wildfire risk, drought and water-supply issues. These are widely documented effects associated with climate change in scientific studies and policy documents. The argument is detailed, specific and directly explains why global warming is a real threat. Therefore, Argument I is a strong argument supporting the statement. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that global warming is merely a misconception. It provides no reasoning, examples or evidence to justify this denial. The argument directly contradicts the widely accepted scientific consensus without offering any serious counterbasis. Thus, Argument II is weak and cannot be considered a strong argument. Verification / Alternative check: Even without deep scientific knowledge, you can see the pattern: Argument I explains why something is a threat by listing real-world consequences. Argument II simply asserts that the whole idea is a misconception, with no logical support. In exam reasoning, arguments that merely deny a problem without justification are typically considered weak. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument II is strong clearly conflicts with both logic and widely known information about climate change. Claiming both arguments are strong would treat a detailed, evidence-based concern as equal to an unsupported denial, which is unreasonable. Saying neither is strong ignores the specific and realistic points made in Argument I. Suggesting that the strength cannot be assessed is incorrect; the quality and detail of Argument I make its strength clear. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may think that because there is “debate” about global warming in media, any claim against it must be taken as strong. In logical reasoning, strength depends on explanation and support, not on mere existence of opposing opinions. Always favour arguments that provide clear, concrete reasons over those that simply dismiss or affirm without evidence. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong. Therefore the correct choice is Only argument I is strong.

Question 7

A statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong. Statement: From a tender age, children must be trained to do household chores. Arguments: I. Yes, doing chores from an early age will help them grow into responsi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem evaluates arguments about whether children should be trained to do household chores from a young age. One argument claims this builds responsibility, while the other claims school learning is sufficient. The goal is to identify which argument is logically strong, based on realistic understanding of child development and education, not on personal preference alone. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Children should be trained from a tender age to do household chores. Argument I: Yes, it will help them grow responsible for their work. Argument II: No, sending them to school is enough because they learn everything there. Assume that children spend time both at home and in school, and that learning in school focuses mainly on academics and some life skills. Concept / Approach: We must check for each argument: Relevance to the statement about early chores. Realism and practicality in the explanation. Whether it addresses an important aspect of children's development. An argument that recognises the complementary roles of home and school is generally stronger than one that assumes school alone covers all aspects of life. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It says that children who do chores will become more responsible. Household chores teach practical skills: organising tasks, following routines, and understanding that work has to be done for the family to function smoothly. Psychologically, being entrusted with small duties can build confidence, independence and accountability. Therefore, Argument I gives a concrete, realistic reason supporting the statement and is a strong argument. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that sending children to school is sufficient because they “learn everything there”. In reality, schools focus mostly on academic subjects and a limited set of life skills; they do not usually provide day-to-day household management practice. Many important life skills such as cooking basics, cleaning and managing personal belongings are typically learned at home. Thus, Argument II overstates what school can do and ignores the unique role of the home environment, making it a weak argument. Verification / Alternative check: Ask whether any educational expert would realistically say that school alone can fully replace home training in daily responsibilities. The answer is no; both environments contribute differently. So the view that “they will learn everything at school” is clearly exaggerated. On the other hand, the claim that chores build responsibility is widely supported by experience and research. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument II is strong ignores the unrealistic assumption it makes about school education. Claiming both are strong equates a grounded developmental point with an exaggerated claim about schooling. Saying neither is strong overlooks the solid, practical reasoning of Argument I. The “either argument I or II” option is intended for questions where both arguments are individually strong but contradictory, which is not the case here. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes underestimate the value of non-academic learning at home and think school is enough for everything. In reasoning questions, you must check if an argument is absolute or balanced. When an argument uses phrases like “learn everything there” without justification, it is usually weak. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong. Therefore the correct option is Only argument I is strong.

Question 8

Read the statement and the two arguments that follow and decide which argument(s) is/are strong. Statement: Should there be strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes? Arguments: I. Yes, strict laws will naturally help maintain water levels for fut…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with environmental conservation versus urban development. The statement suggests strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes. One argument favours conservation for future water security and bird migration, while the other opposes these laws for the sake of urban growth. We must decide which argument is strong based on long-term public interest and logical reasoning. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should there be strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes? Argument I: Yes, they help maintain water levels for generations and support bird migration. Argument II: No, such laws hinder modern urban development and growth. Assume water bodies are important for ecological balance, water storage and biodiversity, and urban development also requires land and infrastructure. Concept / Approach: A strong argument should: Focus on significant, long-term effects. Be realistic and consistent with well-known environmental or social facts. Not base itself purely on short-term or vague benefits at the expense of critical resources. In exam logic, protecting essential natural resources like water bodies usually counts as a strong policy reason, especially when the opposing argument is vague or one-sided. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It states that strict laws will help maintain water levels for future generations and affect bird migration positively. Ponds and lakes act as natural storage for rainwater, recharge groundwater and provide habitats for many species. If they are neglected or encroached upon, cities may face water shortages, urban flooding and loss of biodiversity. Therefore, Argument I brings out crucial long-term environmental and ecological benefits, making it a strong argument in favour of strict laws. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that environmental laws hinder modern urban development and growth. While development does require land, growth must be planned; unregulated destruction of water bodies can cause serious long-term damage, including water crises and flooding, which ultimately also harm development. The argument does not show how strict but well-designed laws cannot co-exist with planned urban development. Thus, it is one-sided and ignores sustainable development concepts, making it a weak argument. Verification / Alternative check: Urban planning in many successful cities now includes conservation of lakes and ponds precisely because they support resilience against climate extremes. Laws protecting these resources are considered good planning, not a barrier to growth. Therefore, the long-term, sustainability-based reasoning in Argument I clearly outweighs the short-term view in Argument II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument II is strong overlooks the environmental and water-security crisis many cities face when water bodies are destroyed. Claiming that both arguments are strong would equate a sustainability-based argument with an unbalanced desire for unrestricted development. Saying neither is strong ignores the clear and important points in Argument I about future generations and ecosystems. The “either I or II” option is meant for cases where both arguments are individually strong but contradictory, which does not apply here. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may be impressed by the word “modern” and assume development should override environmental concerns. In real reasoning, modern development increasingly means sustainable development. Ignoring the importance of water bodies is a serious flaw in an argument, so Argument II cannot be treated as strong. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong. Hence, the correct option is Only argument I is strong.

Question 9

Given is a statement followed by two arguments. Decide which argument is strong. Statement: Is choosing junk food a better option to create interest in eating among children? Arguments: I. Yes, the best way to create interest is to give children the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question considers whether junk food is a “better option” for increasing children's interest in eating. One argument emphasises that children will eat more readily if given food they like. The other argument stresses the serious health risks of junk food and the need to promote healthy habits. We must decide which argument is strong when the question explicitly uses the word “better”. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Is choosing junk food a better option to create interest in eating among children? Argument I: Yes, giving food children like is the best way to make them interested in eating. Argument II: No, junk food causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other problems; we must inculcate healthy eating habits. Assume that junk food is typically high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, and that many children enjoy its taste. Concept / Approach: A strong argument must consider the overall effect of the option, not just a short-term benefit. The word “better” implies a judgement considering both interest in eating and health consequences. An argument that focuses only on immediate liking but ignores long-term harm is weak. An argument that balances children's interest with health and habit formation is stronger. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It focuses only on the fact that children are more interested in food they enjoy, such as junk food. While it is true that children may be more eager to eat tasty junk food, the argument fails to consider the health impact or long-term behavioural patterns. It also ignores alternatives, such as making healthy food appealing through variety, presentation and positive reinforcement. Thus, Argument I is one-sided and does not answer whether junk food is a “better” option overall; it is a weak argument. Evaluate Argument II: It points out that junk food is associated with obesity, heart diseases, diabetes and other health problems. Childhood dietary habits often influence adult health; creating interest in healthy food early in life is crucial. Therefore, even if junk food increases interest in the short term, it is not a better option when health consequences are considered. Argument II directly addresses both the statement and long-term well-being, making it a strong argument. Verification / Alternative check: If a parent or health expert is asked what is a better way to create interest in eating, they will usually say that appealing, nutritious food and good eating habits are better than reliance on unhealthy junk food. Short-term enthusiasm for eating cannot outweigh serious risks. Hence, the reasoning in Argument II more closely reflects rational decision-making. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying both arguments are strong would elevate a narrow, short-term view (Argument I) to the same level as a comprehensive, health-focused view (Argument II). Claiming that neither argument is strong is wrong because Argument II clearly provides serious, relevant reasons. Saying only Argument I is strong or that either I or II is strong ignores the heavy weight of health consequences explained in Argument II. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to misinterpret “better option” as “option that works fastest”. Students may think that because junk food quickly attracts children, Argument I is strong. In reasoning questions, “better” must consider both effectiveness and side effects. When long-term harm is severe, an option cannot be considered better overall. Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct option is Only argument II is strong.

Question 10

In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement as true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens? Argument I: No, the cost…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is the classic compulsory army training debate framed as a statement-and-argument question. The statement suggests one year of compulsory army training for all Indian citizens. Argument I opposes the idea on economic and productivity grounds, while Argument II supports it citing citizenship and character-building benefits. Both arguments must be judged individually for strength, irrespective of personal opinion. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens? Argument I: No, because the cost will be extremely high and one year of productive labour will be lost. Argument II: Yes, because army training helps people become better citizens by developing discipline and responsibility. Assume that large-scale training programmes require substantial funding and that military training can positively influence behaviour and discipline. Concept / Approach: A strong argument is: Relevant to the statement. Grounded in realistic consequences. Important enough that decision-makers would consider it seriously. If both arguments independently meet these criteria but support different sides, then both are strong and the correct code is “if both I and II are strong.” Step-by-Step Solution: Examine Argument I: Compulsory army training for all citizens would require facilities, equipment, trainers, accommodation and logistics on a massive scale. This would place a heavy burden on the national budget. Additionally, citizens would be away from universities or jobs for a full year, which means loss of potential economic output. These are realistic, serious concerns, so Argument I is a strong argument against the proposal. Examine Argument II: Military training is known to instil discipline, physical fitness, teamwork and respect for rules. These qualities can help people become more responsible, law-abiding and community-oriented citizens. Countries with conscription often argue that it strengthens social cohesion and civic values. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in favour of the proposal. Verification / Alternative check: In real policy discussions, both cost and benefit are essential. Ignoring cost would be unrealistic; ignoring benefits to citizenship would also be incomplete. Since both arguments highlight important, realistic effects of compulsory training, both must be regarded as strong in exam reasoning, even though they lead to opposite decisions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Saying only Argument I is strong would neglect the widely recognised social and behavioural benefits that Argument II describes. Saying only Argument II is strong would ignore the massive financial and productivity cost mentioned in Argument I. Claiming that neither argument is strong is clearly incorrect because both focus directly on central aspects of the policy. Saying the strength cannot be decided ignores the clear, real-world logic that underlies both arguments. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes believe that if two arguments conflict, one must automatically be weak. However, many policy questions involve trade-offs where both sides have solid reasoning. Another mistake is to let emotional patriotism or cost consciousness alone dominate; instead, both the economic and civic dimensions should be considered. Final Answer: Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore, the correct choice is if both I and II are strong.

Question 11

In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should street lights be switched off after midnight? Argument I: No, statistics show that crime and…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question addresses a public policy issue: whether street lights should be switched off after midnight. Argument I focuses on safety and crime, while Argument II emphasises saving electricity when traffic is low. Our aim is to decide which argument is strong, judging each on relevance and seriousness, not on personal preference. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should street lights be switched off after midnight? Argument I: No, because statistics show that crime and accidents increase when lights are off. Argument II: Yes, because there is little traffic after midnight and keeping lights on wastes expensive electricity. Assume that both public safety and resource conservation are important considerations for authorities. Concept / Approach: A strong argument is one that: Directly addresses the statement. Uses realistic, significant effects (e.g., safety, economic costs). Reflects a concern that decision-makers actually weigh in practice. If two arguments independently satisfy these conditions but lead to different conclusions, both can be considered strong and the correct code is that both are strong. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It claims that crime and accidents increase when street lights are off. This is realistic; poor visibility can contribute to road accidents, and dark streets may provide cover for criminal activities. Public safety is a critical government responsibility, and statistics showing increased risk are a serious reason not to turn off lights. Hence, Argument I is a strong argument against switching off lights after midnight. Evaluate Argument II: It points out that very few vehicles move after midnight, so keeping all street lights on may waste expensive electricity. Energy conservation and cost-saving are also important policy objectives, especially where electricity is costly or in short supply. The argument directly links reduced usage (few vehicles) to potential savings, which is a legitimate consideration in favour of switching off or reducing lights. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in support of switching off lights after midnight. Verification / Alternative check: In practice, many cities try to balance both concerns, for example by dimming lights, using motion sensors or switching off lights only in low-risk areas. This shows that both safety and power saving are taken seriously. Thus both arguments highlight major, realistic concerns: one about safety, the other about resource use. Both are strong, even though they suggest opposite decisions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only Argument I as strong ignores real power and cost constraints raised by Argument II. Choosing only Argument II as strong dismisses the crucial issue of crime and accidents. Claiming that neither argument is strong is clearly wrong because both relate directly to important outcomes. Saying the strength cannot be evaluated is also incorrect; each argument is clear and based on realistic considerations. Common Pitfalls: Some students think that because safety is more important than cost, only the safety argument can be strong. However, in reasoning questions, an argument can be strong even if it is ultimately outweighed by another; strength is about relevance and seriousness, not about winning in a final policy decision. Recognising that both sides have valid points is essential here. Final Answer: Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore the correct choice is if both I and II are strong.

Question 12

In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement as true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should Chinese crackers be banned? Argument I: No, banning them will hurt China by reducing its …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement-and-argument question asks whether Chinese crackers should be banned. The two arguments presented are unusual: one focuses on the impact on China's sales, and the other says crackers kill insects. We must assess whether either argument provides a serious, relevant basis for deciding Indian policy on banning crackers. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Should Chinese crackers be banned? Argument I: No, because China will be hurt by the decision. Argument II: Yes, because crackers kill insects. Assume the decision is being considered from the perspective of Indian authorities, and issues like public safety, pollution and domestic industry may be relevant in general (though not mentioned here). Concept / Approach: A strong argument should: Be directly relevant to the interests and responsibilities of the decision-maker (here, India or its government). Invoke significant and realistic consequences (e.g., safety, environment, economy of the deciding country). Avoid trivial, irrelevant or weak considerations. We must test each argument against these criteria. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate Argument I: It says we should not ban Chinese crackers because China will be economically hurt. However, Indian policy decisions are primarily based on India's national interests (safety, environment, domestic industry, trade balance), not on whether another country loses sales. The argument does not show how China being hurt affects Indian citizens' welfare in a meaningful way. Hence, Argument I is not relevant to the core decision and is a weak argument. Evaluate Argument II: It suggests we should ban crackers because they kill insects. While crackers may harm insects and other small creatures, policy discussions around crackers typically focus on human health, noise pollution, air quality, and safety. The argument does not show why killing insects is a decisive reason for a ban, and in fact, some insects are considered pests. Therefore, Argument II is also weak and does not form a convincing basis for a national ban. Verification / Alternative check: Think about what a serious debate on banning crackers would involve: topics like child labour in factories, import dependence, environmental damage and accident rates. Neither of the given arguments makes any reference to these key factors. One centres foreign economic loss, the other focuses on insects only, so both fail to address the main policy concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only Argument I as strong wrongly treats foreign sales as a major factor for Indian policy decisions. Choosing only Argument II as strong overestimates the significance of insect deaths compared with human and environmental welfare. Saying both arguments are strong misjudges both, because neither is grounded in central, realistic concerns. Claiming that the strength cannot be decided is incorrect; we can clearly see that both arguments are tangential and weak. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students think that any argument “against banning” or “for banning” must be accepted as strong, but in reasoning questions only serious, policy-level considerations count. Another pitfall is to try to see hidden meaning, such as assuming “insects” stands for broader ecological harm; but we must stick to what is explicitly written. Final Answer: Neither Argument I nor Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct choice is if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 13

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true even if it appears to conflict with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem belongs to the statement and argument type of logical reasoning questions. You are given a policy style question about eliminating songs from Indian movies and two short arguments that support either the yes or no side. Your task is to decide which arguments are strong, that is, which arguments are logically relevant, fact based, and directly address the statement in the Indian context, without being emotional, vague, or side tracking the issue.Given Data / Assumptions:The main statement asks whether songs should be eliminated from Indian movies.Argument I says yes because Hollywood movies are hits even though they usually have no songs.Argument II says no because songs help to increase the length of the movie.In this type of question a strong argument must be relevant to the decision and consider its impact, not just mention unrelated facts.Concept / Approach:To test strength, we ask whether an argument directly helps a policy maker decide for or against the proposal. A useful argument should either show a clear benefit or harm, or highlight a serious practical consequence. It should also be appropriate to the context. Copying a practice from another industry or country without examining cultural and economic differences is normally considered weak. Similarly, mentioning a side effect like increasing length, without explaining why that is good or bad, is not persuasive. We therefore evaluate each argument for relevance and depth, not just for having some connection to movies.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Examine Argument I. It simply compares Indian movies with Hollywood movies and notes that Hollywood films are successful without songs.Step 2: The Indian film industry has a different culture and audience; songs are often part of storytelling and marketing, so copying Hollywood is not automatically sensible.Step 3: Argument I does not show that songs harm Indian movies or that removing them will improve quality, so it is not a strong argument.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says songs help increase the length of the movie, but it does not explain why longer length is desirable.Step 5: Simply increasing length is not a valid reason to keep songs, because length by itself does not guarantee better entertainment or value, so Argument II is also weak.Verification / Alternative check:A strong yes argument would mention reasons like cost, attention span, or global market demands, which Argument I does not fully do.A strong no argument would mention audience expectations, revenue from music, or cultural importance, which Argument II also fails to do.Thus neither argument meets the standard of a strong, logically relevant justification.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option A is wrong because Argument I relies on a shallow comparison and ignores the special nature of Indian cinema.Option B is wrong because Argument II does not explain why increased length is a benefit worth preserving.Option C is wrong because if each argument is individually weak, both together cannot become strong.Common Pitfalls:Many learners mistakenly treat any argument that mentions the topic as strong, without checking actual decision value.Another pitfall is to think that if Hollywood is successful, following it is always wise, which is not necessarily true in reasoning questions.Final Answer:Since both arguments are weak and do not give solid reasons for or against removing songs from Indian movies, the correct choice is if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 14

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must assume the statement is true even if it conflicts with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong an…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question asks you to judge the strength of two arguments related to an economic policy proposal. The proposal is to ban mango export so that domestic prices fall. Strong arguments in such questions must be relevant to the goal stated in the question and should bring in important economic, social, or practical consequences. Weak arguments are usually emotional, loosely related, or based on secondary issues that do not actually decide the policy.Given Data / Assumptions:The statement proposes a ban on mango exports to bring down domestic prices.Argument I links this idea to environmentalists and dieticians who encourage eating only local fruits.Argument II argues against the ban because exports bring in valuable foreign currency.We assume that policymakers care about both domestic prices and foreign exchange income.Concept / Approach:We must check each argument against the specific purpose of the ban and against broader public interest. A strong yes argument here should explain how banning export will significantly reduce prices or produce health and environmental benefits that justify the economic cost. A strong no argument should show that banning export will create serious economic loss or other negative consequences. An argument that merely echoes a preference for local fruits, without connecting it clearly to prices or national benefit, is weak. In contrast, an argument that highlights foreign exchange earnings directly addresses national economic interest and is usually considered strong.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Evaluate Argument I. It says environmentalists and dieticians encourage eating local fruits, which is about health and environment, not directly about price or export policy.Step 2: The argument does not show that banning export is necessary to follow this advice, because people can still choose local fruits even when exports continue.Step 3: Therefore Argument I is not very relevant to the decision of whether a ban on export is a good economic policy.Step 4: Evaluate Argument II. It points out that exports bring in valuable foreign currency, which is a clear and very important economic benefit at national level.Step 5: A policy that bans export would reduce foreign exchange earnings, so this argument presents a serious negative consequence and is a strong argument against the ban.Verification / Alternative check:Consider whether Argument I, if accepted, is enough to justify a ban. The health and environment goal could be achieved by awareness campaigns without stopping exports, so the ban is not shown to be necessary.Argument II links the proposal directly to a national level economic cost, which policymakers must consider before banning exports.Hence, only Argument II qualifies as strong.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option A is wrong because Argument I is not strong; it is only loosely related to the policy.Option C is wrong because both arguments are not strong at the same time; one is clearly weaker than the other.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument II, is clearly relevant and significant.Common Pitfalls:Test takers sometimes confuse popularity of an idea, such as eating local fruits, with policy strength about export bans.Another mistake is forgetting that export decisions are made at national level, where foreign currency earnings are a major factor.Final Answer:Therefore only the second argument gives a strong and relevant reason, so the correct answer is if only argument II is strong.

Question 15

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the arguments is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should zoos be closed …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question addresses an ethical and social issue about whether zoos should be closed down. Two arguments are offered, one in favour of closing zoos and one against. A strong argument in such questions is one that is relevant, non trivial, and based on serious ethical, social, or practical considerations, rather than casual or insensitive claims. You must decide which argument genuinely helps in making a policy decision about shutting zoos.Given Data / Assumptions:The core statement asks whether all zoos should be closed down.Argument I says yes, because imprisoning animals is a crime from a moral perspective.Argument II says no, because it is fine if some animals are kept in captivity for entertainment.We assume that ethical treatment of animals is an important factor in this decision.Concept / Approach:To evaluate strength, we consider whether an argument deals with the main ethical or practical issues. Argument I condemns captivity as a moral crime, directly challenging the basic idea of keeping animals in cages. This directly supports closing zoos and appeals to animal rights, which is a central concern in this debate. Argument II, however, dismisses animal welfare and simply asserts that entertainment justifies captivity, without discussing conservation, education, or protection, which would be stronger reasons sometimes used in favour of zoos. A reasoning test usually treats casual or insensitive justifications as weak, because they ignore important ethical dimensions.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Examine Argument I. It states that imprisoning animals is a crime, implying serious moral wrongdoing in running zoos.Step 2: Since the main question is whether zoos should be closed, an argument claiming that their core practice is morally wrong is highly relevant.Step 3: Argument I is framed in strong moral language and directly addresses the heart of the issue, so it is considered a strong argument.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says that keeping animals in captivity for entertainment is fine, but offers no reasoning beyond this assertion.Step 5: This argument ignores animal rights, welfare, and possible suffering, and does not present a serious social benefit, so it is regarded as weak.Verification / Alternative check:A stronger no argument would mention conservation, breeding endangered species, or educational value, which Argument II does not do.Argument I may be debated in real life, but within this question type it clearly raises a solid ethical objection to zoos and supports closure.Therefore, Argument I is strong and Argument II is weak.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option B is wrong because Argument II provides a shallow reason and does not seriously address the responsibilities of humans towards animals.Option C is wrong because the two arguments are not both strong; one is clearly weaker.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument I, is strong and relevant.Common Pitfalls:One common mistake is to think any opinion stated strongly is a strong argument, even if it lacks reasoning.Another pitfall is to ignore ethical aspects in questions involving animals, health, or public safety, and focus only on entertainment or convenience.Final Answer:Thus only the first argument gives a serious and relevant reason about closing zoos, so the correct choice is if only argument I is strong.

Question 16

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question concerns a public safety rule about banning sale of alcohol near highways. Strong arguments here should address safety, accident data, or legal principles in a realistic way. Weak arguments either misuse ideas like fundamental rights or ignore the serious risks involved. You must judge which of the two arguments provides a convincing reason that policymakers can use when deciding whether to ban such sales.Given Data / Assumptions:The statement proposes banning sale of alcohol near highways.Argument I says no, claiming it violates people s fundamental freedom to decide.Argument II says yes, because a very high percentage of road accidents involve drivers under the influence of alcohol.We assume that road safety and reduction of accidents are important policy goals.Concept / Approach:In a democratic system, personal freedom is important, but it is always balanced against public safety. There is no fundamental right to buy alcohol at a specific location such as a highway. On the other hand, if reliable data show that alcohol consumption near highways leads to a high number of accidents, this becomes a strong reason in favour of restrictions. A strong argument must therefore be fact based and show how the proposed step directly reduces a serious risk, while a weak one either misinterprets rights or ignores harm to others.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Evaluate Argument I. It claims that people have a fundamental right to decide whether to drink alcohol and where to buy it.Step 2: In reality, sale of alcohol is already restricted in many ways and is not treated as an absolute fundamental right, especially in sensitive places.Step 3: Therefore Argument I rests on a doubtful assumption and does not seriously balance safety against freedom, so it is weak.Step 4: Evaluate Argument II. It connects the sale and likely consumption of alcohol near highways with a very high proportion of road accidents.Step 5: Reducing accident risk on highways is a central reason for such a ban, so Argument II is directly relevant and strong.Verification / Alternative check:Imagine a policymaker looking at statistics that say ninety percent of accidents involve drunk drivers. This would strongly support restrictions on access to alcohol near highways.At the same time, no constitutional text grants a specific right to buy alcohol on a highway route, so Argument I cannot stand as a strong legal objection.Hence only Argument II passes the test of a strong argument.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option A is wrong because Argument I misuses the concept of fundamental rights and ignores the safety dimension.Option C is wrong because both arguments are not strong; they clearly differ in quality.Option D is wrong because there is at least one clear and serious argument, namely Argument II.Common Pitfalls:A common mistake is to treat any mention of rights or freedom as automatically strong, even when the right is not actually fundamental.Another pitfall is to underestimate numerical data on accidents, which in such questions almost always support strong safety related arguments.Final Answer:Thus, only the accident based argument is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument II is strong.

Question 17

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should speed…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question looks at road safety infrastructure, specifically speed breakers. They are usually installed to slow traffic and reduce accidents. The problem asks whether they should be banned and offers two arguments. A strong argument is one that uses evidence or clear reasoning about safety and traffic flow. A weak argument is usually emotional, vague, or does not directly address safety outcomes.Given Data / Assumptions:The statement proposes banning speed breakers.Argument I says yes, because accident data show that accidents increase after installing speed breakers.Argument II says no, because speed breakers teach fast drivers a lesson.We assume that real accident statistics, if accurate, are important for policy decisions.Concept / Approach:To judge argument strength, we must see whether each argument focuses on the key aim of road design: improving safety and traffic efficiency. Argument I introduces numerical evidence that speed breakers, at least in some locations, may be causing more accidents rather than fewer. That is directly relevant to the question of banning them. Argument II, however, only states that speed breakers teach drivers a lesson, without explaining whether this actually reduces accidents or whether it causes other harms, such as sudden braking, damage, or loss of control. In reasoning questions, evidence based arguments focused on the impact of the policy are considered strong, while purely moralistic or vague statements are considered weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Examine Argument I carefully. It mentions that the number of accidents increases after speed breakers are put in place.Step 2: If this data is true, speed breakers at those locations are not serving their main purpose and may even be dangerous.Step 3: This directly supports the idea of banning at least some speed breakers or replacing them with safer alternatives, so Argument I is strong.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says speed breakers teach fast drivers a lesson, but does not link this lesson to lower accident rates or safer behaviour.Step 5: Without clear evidence of safety benefit, simply teaching a lesson is not a strong justification for keeping an obstacle that may itself cause accidents, so Argument II is weak.Verification / Alternative check:In policy making, accident statistics and research are heavily relied upon. An argument using such data is naturally strong in this context.In contrast, arguments that rely mainly on punishment or teaching a lesson without showing safety results will not convince traffic planners.Hence only Argument I qualifies as a strong argument.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option B is wrong because Argument II does not present measurable benefits, only a vague statement about drivers learning.Option C is wrong because the arguments differ greatly in their strength and cannot both be considered strong.Option D is wrong because one argument, namely Argument I, clearly uses relevant data and is strong.Common Pitfalls:It is easy to be influenced by the emotional satisfaction of teaching fast drivers a lesson and to forget that the real goal is safety.Another mistake is to ignore the phrase data shows, which in exam questions usually signals a strong argument based on evidence.Final Answer:Therefore only the first argument, based on accident data, is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument I is strong.

Question 18

In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question deals with civic cleanliness and public behaviour. The statement proposes making eating paan at public places punishable. Two arguments are provided. A strong argument here should focus on public hygiene, cleanliness, and health or on individual rights in a balanced way. A weak argument will usually just mention popularity or habits, without connecting them to the real issue of cleanliness and public interest.Given Data / Assumptions:The proposal is to make eating paan at public places a punishable act.Argument I says yes, because people eat paan, spit, and make public areas dirty.Argument II says no, because Indians love paan.We assume civic authorities want to keep public spaces clean and pleasant for all.Concept / Approach:When the question is about public rules, strong arguments must relate to the impact on society, such as cleanliness, hygiene, and visual appearance. Argument I highlights that people who eat paan often spit the juice on walls, roads, and public buildings, leading to dirty and unhygienic surroundings. This directly supports the need for regulation. Argument II merely states that paan is popular and liked by many, which does not automatically mean behaviour in public spaces cannot be regulated. Popularity alone is not a sufficient basis to reject a rule intended to protect cleanliness.Step-by-Step Solution:Step 1: Consider Argument I. It connects the act of eating paan in public with spitting and dirtying public places, which is a direct negative consequence.Step 2: Dirty public spaces can spread disease, create a bad impression, and increase cleaning costs, so this argument is strong and relevant.Step 3: Now consider Argument II, which says Indians love paan. While this may be true, it does not address the actual problem of spitting and dirt.Step 4: Loving a food item does not mean people must be allowed to consume it in ways that harm public hygiene.Step 5: Therefore Argument II is weak, and only Argument I stands as a strong argument supporting the proposal.Verification / Alternative check:Imagine a policymaker. They would be convinced by data or observations about dirt, stains, and disease spread, not by the fact that an item is liked.Regulations already exist for many popular habits when they disturb others, such as smoking bans in some public spaces, so popularity is not a decisive reason.This confirms that Argument I is strong and Argument II is not.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Option B is wrong because popularity and love for paan do not justify creating dirty public areas.Option C is wrong because both arguments do not have equal strength; one is clearly practical while the other is emotional.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument I, is clearly strong and relevant.Common Pitfalls:Learners sometimes treat cultural liking as an automatic defence for any behaviour, ignoring public hygiene issues.Another pitfall is to forget that laws and punishments are usually justified by harm prevention, not by what people enjoy.Final Answer:Hence, only the first argument that focuses on cleanliness and hygiene is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument I is strong.

Question 19

The question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.  Statement: Should the RBI lift the ban on the BOB World …

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: A "strong" argument must be directly related to the statement, logically sound, and decisive. Ambivalent or contradictory arguments are considered "weak". Step-by-Step Solution: • Analyze Argument I: This argument starts by supporting the lifting of the ban for "financial inclusion" but immediately undermines its own stance by stating "but it may also risk exposing users to potential security threats." Because it is hesitant and contradictory, it fails to make a decisive point. Therefore, Argument I is weak. • Analyze Argument II: This argument provides a clear, logical, and firm reason for maintaining the ban: ensuring financial security and protecting users from fraud and data breaches. This is a primary responsibility of regulatory bodies like the RBI. Therefore, Argument II is strong. • Conclusion: Only the second argument holds up logically without contradicting itself. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: Arguments containing words like "but", "might", or presenting both pros and cons within the same point are almost always weak because they lack conviction. You can quickly eliminate Argument I based on this structural flaw. Common Pitfall: Mistaking a balanced view for a "strong" argument. In this specific question format, an argument must pick a side and defend it resolutely to be considered strong. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is If only II is strong.

Question 20

Directions: In the question given below, a passage is given followed by five statements. Read the information and answer the question that follows.  Recent research definitively proves that consuming at least three cups of black coffee daily prevent…

Accepted Answer

Concept & Logic: In critical reasoning, a conclusion based on a scientific claim can be significantly weakened if the source of the research has a vested interest or conflict of interest, as it casts doubt on the validity of the findings. Step-by-Step Solution: - Analyze the argument: The passage concludes that everyone should drink three cups of coffee daily to prevent diabetes, based on the premise that recent research "definitively proves" this benefit. - Evaluate the options: We need to find the statement that most strongly undermines this recommendation. - Statement I: Suggests the research was funded by coffee companies. This introduces a major conflict of interest, undermining the credibility of the "definitive proof" upon which the entire recommendation is based. - Statements II & V: Point out side effects of high/excessive consumption, but three cups might not necessarily be considered "high" or "excessive" for the general population in the context of the study. - Statement III: Mentions tolerance issues, which is a valid point against the word "everyone," but does not invalidate the core medical claim about diabetes prevention. - Statement IV: Suggests alternatives (diet and exercise), but does not weaken the claim that coffee works. - Statement I directly attacks the foundational premise of the argument, making it the most fundamental weakener. Exam Strategy & Shortcut: When an argument relies heavily on a study or research, always look for an option that exposes a bias, flawed methodology, or vested interest in that study. This is a classic critical reasoning pattern. Common Pitfall: Choosing an option that offers an alternative solution (like diet and exercise) rather than attacking the argument's own logic and evidence. Final Answer: Therefore, the correct answer is Only I.

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter