Question 1

Critical reasoning – Should tuition fees in all post-graduate courses be hiked considerably? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. Higher fees will make students more serious and improve quality. II. No. Higher fees will force meritorious poor students to …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This policy question weighs access versus assumed behavioral effects of pricing. Strong arguments should rely on clear, relevant consequences and equity considerations rather than speculative claims about motivation.Given Data / Assumptions:I asserts a causal link: higher price → seriousness → quality.II warns of exclusion of deserving students lacking means.Concept / Approach:Quality in higher education depends on pedagogy, faculty, infrastructure, and assessment more than on fee size alone. Equity and access are core public-policy concerns; pricing students out directly undermines inclusion.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: The claim that higher fees inherently improve seriousness is speculative and not necessarily true; increased cost may increase stress or debt, not academic commitment. Weak.Argument II: Price barriers can exclude meritorious students, especially from low-income backgrounds, reducing social mobility and overall talent utilization. Strong.Verification / Alternative check:Empirical evidence often links affordability and scholarships to broader participation and attainment. Raising fees without robust need-based aid will deter capable candidates—supporting II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I strong: Unsupported generalization.Either/Neither/Both: Incorrect—only II stands as a solid, policy-relevant concern.Common Pitfalls:Assuming price equals quality; ignoring financial-aid structures and their role in equity.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 2

Critical reasoning – Should persons below 18 years be allowed to join the armed forces? Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Below 18, individuals lack full physical and mental maturity to bear such burdens. II. Yes. Early induction yields longer years of …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Entry-age policies in armed forces involve fitness, maturity, ethics, and international norms protecting minors from combat roles. Strong arguments consider readiness and safeguarding youth.Given Data / Assumptions:I focuses on physical and psychological maturity.II focuses on tenure length as a benefit.Concept / Approach:Combat readiness requires rigorous standards. International conventions discourage or prohibit recruitment of minors for military service. Longevity of service is secondary to maturity and welfare.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Strong. It appeals to fitness, safety, and psychological development—core criteria for military selection.Argument II: Weak. Longer service years cannot outweigh the risks and ethical concerns of recruiting minors. It ignores readiness and legal constraints.Verification / Alternative check:Most professional militaries maintain minimum ages in line with development and international standards—supporting I.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Neither / Both: Incorrect; only the maturity-based argument holds.Common Pitfalls:Prioritizing headcount/tenure over human development and ethics.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

Question 3

Critical reasoning – Should all infrastructural development projects be handed over to the private sector? Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Private entities are not equipped to handle such projects. II. Yes. Developed countries have private sector hand…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This policy asks for a blanket handover of all infrastructure to private entities. Strong arguments should present evidence-based capacity assessments, regulatory frameworks, value-for-money, and sector-specific nuances—not sweeping generalizations or appeals to foreign practice.Given Data / Assumptions:I asserts private entities are “not equipped” (absolute claim without substantiation).II argues “developed countries do it” (appeal to analogy).Concept / Approach:A sound position would weigh public–private options by project type, risk allocation, and governance capacity. Absolute claims (I) and simplistic analogies (II) are weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Overgeneralizes. Many private firms can and do execute complex projects; capability varies. Without evidence, “not equipped” is weak.Argument II: Appeal to practice elsewhere does not prove suitability in the local institutional context (laws, markets, regulators). Also a weak, non-specific rationale.Verification / Alternative check:Better arguments would discuss PPP structures, accountability, funding models, and sectoral readiness—none appear here.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Both: Each accepts at least one weak argument.Common Pitfalls:Accepting absolute or comparative claims without context or evidence.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong

Question 4

Critical reasoning – Should all colleges be allowed to devise their own curriculum and syllabus for vocational self-employment courses? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. This will help generate employment opportunities. II. No. Lack of uniformity will …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy weighs institutional flexibility for vocational relevance against system-wide quality control through standardization. Both sides can offer strong, policy-relevant considerations.Given Data / Assumptions:I emphasizes agility: local industry needs change fast; curricula tailored by colleges can boost employability and self-employment.II emphasizes quality and comparability: too much divergence can erode minimum standards and portability of credentials.Concept / Approach:In higher education policy, innovation and responsiveness (I) must be balanced with accreditation, benchmarking, and core outcomes (II). These are complementary truths generating a real trade-off.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Strong. Autonomy often enables partnerships with local employers, rapid curriculum updates, and hands-on training to raise job readiness.Argument II: Strong. Uniform baselines protect learners, employers, and mobility across institutions; unchecked divergence can harm consistency and quality.Verification / Alternative check:Many systems adopt hybrid models: core standards plus limited local customization—validating the strength of both concerns.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: Each ignores a legitimate, competing policy consideration.Common Pitfalls:Framing autonomy and quality as mutually exclusive; in practice, both matter.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 5

Critical reasoning – Should agriculture in rural India be mechanized? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. Mechanization leads to higher production. II. No. Many villagers would become unemployed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Mechanization affects productivity, costs, seasonality, and rural employment. Both arguments raise substantive, policy-relevant consequences and therefore can be strong simultaneously, reflecting a real trade-off.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Mechanization can increase yields per labor-hour, timeliness of operations, and overall efficiency.II: In labor-surplus regions or seasons, rapid mechanization can reduce demand for manual labor, risking unemployment.Concept / Approach:Policy analysis acknowledges multiple valid impacts. The strength of each argument rests on different objectives: productivity growth (I) versus inclusive employment (II). Both are legitimate public goals.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Strong. Equipment like tractors, harvesters, and planters improve timeliness and scale, typically raising output and lowering unit costs.Argument II: Strong. Without safety nets, skilling, or diversified rural opportunities, mechanization can displace workers, exacerbating rural distress.Verification / Alternative check:Optimal policy usually blends phased mechanization with employment programs, agri-services, and skilling—recognizing the validity of both concerns.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: Each dismisses a legitimate side of the trade-off.Common Pitfalls:Assuming productivity gains automatically translate into shared prosperity; ignoring transitional impacts on labor.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 6

Critical reasoning – Should foreign investment be concentrated in only a few states? Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Concentration contradicts the aim of overall national development. II. Yes. Many states lack infrastructure to attract foreign investm…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy question contrasts balanced regional development against pragmatic concentration where readiness exists. Both arguments reflect real policy tensions and can be strong.Given Data / Assumptions:I emphasizes equity and spatial balance—avoiding widening regional disparities.II emphasizes feasibility—investors prefer states with infrastructure, logistics, and governance capacity.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments address different but legitimate goals: national cohesion and fairness (I) versus practical constraints and investment efficacy (II). Policy often staggers development—build hubs while upgrading lagging regions.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Strong. Concentration can deepen inequality; diffusion of investment supports inclusive growth.Argument II: Strong. Where enabling conditions are absent, initial concentration may be necessary to kick-start growth and demonstration effects.Verification / Alternative check:Many countries sequence reforms: attract FDI to ready states, then extend infrastructure and reforms nationwide—validating both positions as strong.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: Each ignores a legitimate dimension of the policy dilemma.Common Pitfalls:Assuming a one-size-fits-all approach; neglecting transition plans for underprepared states.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 7

Policy reasoning — petroleum pricing by market Statement: Should oil companies be allowed to fix the retail prices of petroleum products depending on prevailing market conditions? Arguments: I. Yes — this is the only way to make the oil companies co…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a classic “Which arguments are strong?” question from public policy and economics. The issue is whether oil companies should be allowed market-based pricing for petroleum products. A strong argument must be relevant, factually plausible, and address the core of the decision without relying on exaggeration or trivialities.Given Data / Assumptions:The question concerns pricing freedom tied to market conditions.Argument I claims commercial viability is tied to market pricing.Argument II claims social hardship if prices rise and transmit to essentials (transport, logistics, food).No hidden data on subsidies, competition, or safety nets are provided; we judge arguments on general merit.Concept / Approach:Energy pricing affects firms’ cost recovery, investment, and supply reliability (efficiency view).Energy prices also have strong pass-through effects on inflation and cost of living (equity view).In evaluation questions, two opposing but independently cogent perspectives can both be strong if each presents a valid policy dimension.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess Argument I: Market-based pricing supports cost recovery when crude prices, exchange rates, and refining margins fluctuate. Without adequate recovery, companies underinvest, creating shortages and fiscal burdens. This is a relevant, policy-grounded argument—strong.Assess Argument II: Petroleum is a universal input. Price spikes raise transport costs and feed into prices of essentials, disproportionately hurting low-income households. This social-cost argument is also relevant and strong.Verification / Alternative check:Many countries balance these concerns by pricing via market while using targeted transfers or tax policy to protect the poor—confirming both efficiency and equity are legitimate considerations.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or Only II: Ignores the other valid dimension (efficiency vs. equity).Either I or II: Suggests mutual exclusivity, but both can stand as strong concurrently.Neither: Both are clearly relevant and reasoned.Common Pitfalls:Mistaking “strong” for “agree with personally.” Strength refers to reasoning quality, not personal preference.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 8

Language of instruction — vernacular-only policy across all levels Statement: Should education at all levels be offered only in the vernacular (regional) medium? Arguments: I. Yes — this is the only way to enhance students’ performance. II. No — thi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This argumentation question examines medium-of-instruction policy. A strong argument must be realistic, relevant, and free from absolute, unsubstantiated claims. The policy proposed is extreme: vernacular-only at all levels and in all domains of learning.Given Data / Assumptions:I claims a single cause (“only way”) for performance improvement.II highlights the practical constraint of limited high-quality learning resources across all subjects and grades in every vernacular.Higher education often relies on specialized literature with global circulation (journals, standards, technical vocabularies).Concept / Approach:A strong argument avoids sweeping absolutes and recognizes resource ecosystems (textbooks, reference works, teacher preparation, digital content).Feasibility and resource availability are central to policy viability.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Claiming the vernacular is the “only way” to enhance performance is overbroad. Student outcomes depend on pedagogy, teacher quality, assessment, home environment, and resources; hence I is weak.Evaluate II: The scarcity of high-quality, up-to-date materials in all regional languages, especially for advanced subjects, is a concrete constraint. Implementing a vernacular-only policy would impede access to knowledge where resources are lacking. II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Bilingual or flexible-medium models often perform well, leveraging both mother-tongue comprehension and access to wider literature—supporting the caution in II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Both / Either: Overstate I’s merit; it is an absolute with weak support.Neither: II is clearly relevant and practical.Common Pitfalls:Equating comprehension benefits in early grades with a universal, all-level mandate without resourcing.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 9

Bank deposits — one uniform interest rate for all terms? Statement: Should there be only one rate of interest for term deposits of varying durations in banks? Arguments: I. No — people will refrain from keeping money for longer duration, reducing ba…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Interest-rate structure on deposits typically varies with term because banks manage asset–liability maturity. This question evaluates whether a single rate for all terms is desirable and whether the offered arguments are strong in reasoning and evidential plausibility.Given Data / Assumptions:I predicts depositors will avoid longer terms if rates are uniform, but it does not explain why they would not still choose terms for safety or convenience.II claims simplicity will encourage more deposits, but offers no linkage to behavior beyond conjecture and ignores risk–return trade-offs.No empirical evidence is offered; we judge logic quality.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments need a clear causal path and must address how pricing aligns with maturity risk and banking stability.Merely stating consequences without mechanism or acknowledging standard practice is weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: It assumes uniform rate leads to shunning long terms. Some depositors still prefer long terms for planning, but the argument does not convincingly prove systemic reduction in stability; it is speculative—weak.Assess II: “Simplicity” alone does not imply people will deposit more. Depositors respond to returns, safety, and liquidity. Lacking substantive reasoning, II is also weak.Verification / Alternative check:In practice, term premiums compensate for locking funds. Removing them can misprice maturities; yet neither argument adequately articulates this technical rationale.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Both / Either: These overcredit arguments that are speculative and under-explained.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “sounds plausible” with “logically sufficient.” Strong policy arguments require more than assertion.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong

Question 10

Media policy in a democracy — should government control all news? Statement: Should all news be controlled by the Government in a democracy? Arguments: I. Yes — variety of news only confuses people. II. No — controlled news loses credibility.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The question addresses press freedom versus government control in a democratic setup. A strong argument must align with democratic principles and practical outcomes for information integrity and public trust.Given Data / Assumptions:I claims diversity confuses citizens.II argues that government-controlled news loses credibility among the public.Democracies value pluralism and independent verification as checks on power.Concept / Approach:Credibility in news depends on independence, transparency, and accountability. Monopolized, state-controlled narratives are prone to bias and erosion of trust.Citizens can process varied information; institutions (public broadcasters, press councils) and media literacy help reduce confusion without censorship.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Asserting that variety “confuses” people is paternalistic and ignores the role of plural media in democracy. Weak.Argument II: Controlled news tends to be distrusted and is vulnerable to propaganda, undermining democratic accountability. Strong.Verification / Alternative check:Historical experience shows that press control typically reduces investigative scrutiny and public confidence, validating II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Both / Either / Neither: These fail to recognize that I is weak while II is cogent and relevant.Common Pitfalls:Equating information management with truth; credibility stems from independence, not monopoly.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 11

Tax policy — should taxes on colour televisions be further increased? Statement: Should taxes on colour televisions be raised further? Arguments: I. Yes — colour televisions are luxury items bought only by rich people. II. No — televisions are also …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Excise or indirect tax decisions should rely on clear criteria (luxury vs. merit goods, externalities, revenue needs) and sound evidence. Here, both arguments hinge on sweeping generalizations about who buys televisions.Given Data / Assumptions:I claims TVs are “only” for the rich — an absolute claim unlikely to be true.II claims TVs are also bought by the poor — but merely stating ownership diversity does not address tax design.No data on income elasticity, affordability, or policy objective is given.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should provide a principled basis (e.g., regressivity, digital inclusion, externalities) rather than broad assertions.Both statements are anecdotal and do not engage with tax policy goals or consequences.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I is weak because it rests on a false absolute (“only rich”).Argument II is weak because simply noting that the poor also purchase TVs does not prove that higher or lower taxes are justified.Verification / Alternative check:Sound analysis would weigh regressivity, access to information, and market structure—none of which either argument addresses.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option crediting I or II as strong overlooks their general and unsupported nature.Common Pitfalls:Confusing a sociological observation with a policy rationale.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong

Question 12

Social policy — should the Government pay unemployment allowance to educated unemployed youth? Statement: Should the educated unemployed be paid an “unemployment allowance” by the Government? Arguments: I. Yes — it provides monetary support to seek …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Unemployment allowances are debated worldwide. A strong argument can come from either efficiency/equity benefits or from potential moral hazard concerns. The question asks which of the two given arguments are strong.Given Data / Assumptions:I claims cash support helps job search and can seed self-employment.II warns of reduced job-seeking effort due to guaranteed income.We are not told about design safeguards (duration caps, conditionality), so both perspectives are evaluated in principle.Concept / Approach:Income support can stabilize households and enable search time or microenterprise experiments.Poorly designed allowances can indeed reduce work incentives (classical moral hazard).In argument-strength questions, two opposing positions may both be strong if each is relevant and logically sound.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Relevant and plausible—cash support can improve matching and entrepreneurship readiness.Argument II: Also relevant—without design features, allowances may blunt incentives to accept available work.Verification / Alternative check:Policy practice balances these by adding conditionality, time limits, or training linkages to preserve incentives while offering support.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or Only II: Ignores the validity of the other side.Either I or II: Suggests exclusivity; both stand as strong.Neither: Both are clearly relevant.Common Pitfalls:Equating “strong” with one’s preferred ideology; both efficiency and incentive arguments matter.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Question 13

Access and equity — should higher education be restricted to only those who can pay? Statement: Should higher education be restricted to only those who can bear the expenditure? Arguments: I. Yes — higher education is costly and should not be given …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question weighs fiscal cost against merit-based access. A strong argument will recognize the social returns to talent and fairness concerns without making unsupported absolutes about financing models.Given Data / Assumptions:I asserts costliness implies exclusion, but does not consider scholarships, loans, or public support.II emphasizes that inability to pay should not bar capable students—addressing merit and opportunity.The question is about restriction “only to those who can pay,” an extreme stance.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments avoid extremes and consider equity instruments (need-based aid, income-contingent loans).Societies benefit from educating high-ability students regardless of income.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I is weak as it equates cost with exclusion and ignores established funding solutions that preserve access.Argument II is strong; it directly rebuts the extreme restriction by appealing to merit and equal opportunity.Verification / Alternative check:Global practice: grants/loans/fee waivers ensure talented but poor students are not locked out.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Both / Either / Neither: These fail to recognize that only II robustly addresses the extremity of the proposal.Common Pitfalls:Treating affordability as a binary; policy toolkit is richer than “can pay vs. cannot pay.”Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 14

Law and society — punish those who receive dowry despite prohibition? Statement: Should those who receive dowry, despite the law prohibiting it, be punished? Arguments: I. Yes — anyone who violates the law must be punished. II. No — the dowry system…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem tests legal reasoning and the relevance of cultural practices versus statutory prohibition. A strong argument must be consistent with the rule of law and the policy objective of the statute.Given Data / Assumptions:Dowry is prohibited by law.I argues for enforcing the law against violators.II appeals to tradition (“since time immemorial”) as a reason not to punish.Concept / Approach:Laws are enacted to change harmful practices. Tradition cannot legitimize an illegal act.Strong arguments rely on legality and public-interest goals (deterrence, protection).Step-by-Step Solution:I is strong: If a conduct is criminalized, punishment follows upon proof to deter and uphold justice.II is weak: Appeal to tradition is a fallacy and contradicts the purpose of the statute.Verification / Alternative check:Social reform laws (e.g., against dowry) are enforced despite historical prevalence; otherwise, the law is meaningless.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either / Neither: These ignore that only I aligns with law and policy.Common Pitfalls:Confusing social prevalence with legitimacy.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

Question 15

National priorities — is heavy defence expenditure justified? Statement: Is the Government justified in spending so much on defence? Arguments: I. Yes — the safety of the country is of prime importance. II. No — during peace, this money could be use…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Budget allocation between defence and development is a classic public-finance dilemma. A strong argument should directly support or oppose the proposition with principles that hold generally, not on a narrow, conditional basis that sidesteps strategic realities.Given Data / Assumptions:I places national security as paramount, a foundational responsibility of the state.II assumes a state of peace and diverts funds, but peace itself often depends on credible defence and preparedness.The question is not about “any” defence spending but “so much” — still, the reasoning must recognize deterrence needs.Concept / Approach:Deterrence and readiness require sustained investment even in peacetime.Opportunity cost exists, but II’s logic is conditional and overlooks the role of defence in sustaining peace.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I is strong because national safety underpins all other development objectives; inadequate defence may jeopardize sovereignty and stability.Argument II is weak; it presumes peace is guaranteed without considering deterrence and strategic commitments, thus not a robust refutation.Verification / Alternative check:Many nations maintain steady defence outlays in peacetime to preserve readiness, technology, and alliances.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either / Neither: These misjudge the relative strengths; II is not sufficiently grounded.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring that preparedness costs are paid during peace to avoid paying higher costs during conflict.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

Question 16

Self-defence training for girls — judo and karate in practice Statement: Should girls learn arts like judo and karate? Arguments: I. Yes — such skills can help them defend themselves from rogues and ruffians. II. No — they will lose their feminine g…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question tests practical reasoning versus stereotype. It asks whether girls should learn martial arts such as judo and karate. The evaluation hinges on safety benefits versus a claim about “feminine grace.”Given Data / Assumptions:I posits a safety benefit: self-defence skills can deter or counter physical threats.II asserts a negative aesthetic impact on “femininity,” a subjective and stereotyped claim.No evidence is presented that training reduces grace or health; conversely, martial arts often improve coordination and confidence.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are grounded in tangible outcomes and public safety considerations.Stereotypes or value judgments unrelated to the core objective are weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I is strong: Defensive readiness and situational confidence are meaningful benefits for personal safety.Argument II is weak: It relies on subjective notions of “grace,” not on evidence; many practitioners maintain or enhance poise and fitness.Verification / Alternative check:Experience shows self-defence programs improve awareness, balance, and resilience without compromising appearance or demeanor.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either / Neither: These options overlook that only I directly supports a valuable, demonstrable objective.Common Pitfalls:Giving weight to stereotypes instead of practical safety considerations.Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

Question 17

Critical Reasoning – National infrastructure policy Statement: Should India develop a national water grid by interlinking the rivers across the country? Arguments: I. No. This is not possible because we do not have the technical know-how. II. Yes. T…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:In “strong/weak argument” questions, we judge whether an argument is directly relevant, fact-plausible, and policy-useful given the statement. The policy under debate is building a national water grid by interlinking rivers to balance floods and droughts. We must assess the merit of each argument, not our personal opinion on river linking.Given Data / Assumptions:The statement asks about a national-level interlinking (policy feasibility and desirability).No additional facts are provided about cost, environment, or exact technology.We should avoid absolute claims that add unsupported facts.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are specific, address core decision criteria (benefits, feasibility, risks), and avoid sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions. An argument that says “not possible” requires strong evidence; an argument that describes a clear potential public benefit can be considered strong if it is directly tied to the policy.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: “Not possible” due to lack of technical know-how is a blanket assertion. Large inter-basin transfer projects exist globally and within India in parts. The claim neither presents evidence nor engages with policy design options (phased execution, pilots). Hence, I is weak.Evaluate II: The stated benefit—moving excess water to deficit basins—is directly relevant to the policy’s core objective (mitigating floods/droughts). While costs and environmental impacts would matter in practice, at the reasoning level this is a cogent, on-point benefit argument. Hence, II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:If an argument can stand even when we consider counterpoints (cost, ecology), it remains strong as a benefit proposition. Argument II continues to be relevant; argument I collapses without evidence.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” is wrong because I is an unsupported impossibility claim.“Either…/Neither…” are wrong because II is clearly strong.“Both” is wrong as I is not strong.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “strong argument” with forecasting the final policy decision; accepting absolute impossibility claims without evidence.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 18

Critical Reasoning – Safekeeping of national-significance awards Statement: Should individuals/institutions that possess treasures of national significance (for example, Nobel Prizes) hand them over to the Central Government for safe custody? Argume…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem examines policy arguments around cultural property and custodianship. We must decide which argument is “strong,” meaning relevant, reasonable, and not based on sweeping or doubtful assumptions.Given Data / Assumptions:Treasures are privately held by winners or institutions.No evidence is given that all private custodians cannot protect them.Ownership rights and autonomy are part of the policy context.Concept / Approach:An argument is strong if it rests on a sensible principle or clear fact that supports or opposes the proposal without requiring extra assumptions that are not stated or commonly accepted.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: It asserts a universal lack of protective capacity (“do not have enough resources”). This is over-generalized and unsupported. Many institutions and individuals can and do protect high-value artifacts adequately. Hence, I is weak.Evaluate II: It appeals to property rights and rightful custody of awardees/owners. This is a clear, relevant, and principled reason against compulsory central custody. Hence, II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Even if the government could offer better security, compulsory transfer is a separate policy question. Ownership/custody rights remain a valid decisive consideration, sustaining the strength of II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” and “Both” overstate I, which lacks evidence.“Either” or “Neither” fail because II is clearly strong.Common Pitfalls:Assuming incapacity of all private custodians; equating “may be safer with government” with “must be compulsory.”Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 19

Critical Reasoning – Reservation on communal basis Statement: Should seats and posts be reserved on a communal (religious/community) basis? Arguments: I. Yes. It will check most inter-communal biases. II. No. Ours is a secular state.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The topic is sensitive public policy. We are not to pass moral judgment but to assess which argument is stronger by being principled, relevant, and minimally assumptive.Given Data / Assumptions:The proposal is reservation based explicitly on communal identity.Secular governance is a constitutional principle.No evidence is provided that such reservation reduces bias.Concept / Approach:A strong argument rests on constitutional principles or demonstrable outcomes. Arguments based on unverified predictions (e.g., “will check most biases”) are comparatively weak.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: It predicts that communal reservations will check “most” biases—an overbroad, unproven claim. Lacking evidence, it is weak.Evaluate II: It invokes the secular nature of the state, a clear, enduring constitutional value that directly weighs against communal quotas. This is a strong, principle-based argument.Verification / Alternative check:Even if special measures for disadvantaged groups may exist, explicitly communal reservations raise secularism concerns—II remains strong in a general reasoning test.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I only: rests on speculation.Either/Neither: II is clearly strong.Both: I is not strong.Common Pitfalls:Confusing empirical social outcomes with normative constitutional reasoning; accepting large, unevidenced claims.Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Question 20

Critical Reasoning – Should octroi be abolished? Statement: Should the local tax called octroi be abolished? Arguments: I. Yes. Abolishing octroi will eliminate an important source of corruption. II. No. Abolishing octroi will adversely affect gover…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a policy trade-off. We evaluate whether each side gives a valid, decision-relevant reason. Octroi is a point-of-entry levy; arguments typically involve governance quality and fiscal impact.Given Data / Assumptions:I claims corruption risk is tied to octroi check-posts and discretionary assessments.II claims octroi contributes to local revenues.No alternative revenue mechanisms are specified.Concept / Approach:A strong argument may highlight a core benefit (anti-corruption) or a core cost (revenue loss). Both can be simultaneously strong because policy decisions often involve balancing such considerations.Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Corruption opportunities at physical check-points are a recognized governance issue. Removing a mechanism prone to rent-seeking is a valid reason. So I is strong.Evaluate II: Revenue implications are immediate and material to local service delivery. Without a replacement tax, abolition can hurt finances. So II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Even if one designs e-tolls or compensatory grants, the two considerations remain central: integrity and revenue. Thus both are decision-relevant and strong.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II ignores the legitimate countervailing concern.Either/Neither misread the policy trade-off nature.Common Pitfalls:Treating policy choices as single-factor decisions; ignoring fiscal sustainability.Final Answer:Both I and II are strong

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter