Statement and Argument Questions

• Elections — Should parliamentary polls be held every 3 years instead of every 5 years? Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years (instead of five years)? Arguments: I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources. II. Yes. Voters can change non-performing representatives sooner. III. No. Representatives will not have enough time to settle and focus on development.
• Public administration — Should the number of holidays for government employees be reduced? Statement: Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. Our government employees have the maximum holidays among countries of the world. II. Yes. It is a British legacy we should not continue. III. Yes. Fewer holidays will speed up work and clear pending jobs in time. IV. No. Employees need ample time with family.
• School assessment — Should Class IV children have Board examinations? Statement: Should class IV children have Board examination? Arguments: I. Yes. It will motivate children to study and score higher, improving early learning. II. No. It will force children to study mechanically, reducing enjoyment. III. Yes. In a competitive world, children must be prepared from the beginning to face tough exams. IV. No. It will add pressure on tender-aged children and cut their play time.
• Road safety — Should the helmet rule for both driver and pillion be enforced strictly? Statement: Should wearing a helmet for both driver and pillion rider on a motorbike be enforced strictly? Arguments: I. Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all. II. No. Each individual should decide personal safety. III. No. Only the head is protected; the rest of the body is not. IV. Yes. Head is highly vulnerable; a helmet is necessary protection.
• Higher education access — Should any graduate enter any post-graduate course of their choice? Statement: Should all students graduating in any discipline, who desire post-graduation in a subject of their choice, be allowed to enrol? Arguments: I. Yes. Students are the best judges of their capabilities; there should not be restrictions. II. No. Relevant prerequisites in graduation are needed for entry to certain post-graduate courses. III. No. Institutes are limited and cannot accommodate everyone in any subject they choose.
• School health — Should sex education be imparted in schools? Statement: Should we impart sex education in schools? Arguments: I. Yes. All the progressive nations do so. II. No. We cannot impart it in co-educational schools. III. Yes. It would reduce misunderstandings and make the younger generation physically and mentally healthier. IV. No. It will destroy moral fibre and traditional values.
• Critical reasoning – Policy decision on Indian Railways Statement: Should coal (steam/diesel-hauled) engines be replaced by electric engines in trains? Arguments: I. Yes. Coal engines cause a lot of pollution. II. Yes. Electric engines have better performance, are easier to operate, and require lower maintenance. III. No. India does not produce enough electricity to fulfil its domestic needs as well.
• Critical reasoning – Capital punishment policy Statement: Should all those convicted for heinous crimes (e.g., murder or rape) beyond all reasonable doubt be given the death penalty? Arguments: I. No. Death penalty should be reserved for very rare and exceptional cases. II. Yes. It is the only way to punish perpetrators of such inhuman acts. III. Yes. Severe punishments deter such crimes and make society safer. IV. No. Repentant offenders should be given a chance to reform and lead a normal life.
• Critical reasoning – Disinvestment of profit-making public sector units (PSUs) Statement: Should all profit-making PSUs be sold to private companies? Arguments: I. Yes. Sale proceeds will augment government resources for development programmes. II. No. Private companies will not be able to run these units effectively. III. Yes. Service quality will improve significantly. IV. No. Employees will lose job security at all levels.
• Critical reasoning – Age restrictions for entry to beer bars Statement: Should all youngsters below 21 years be disallowed from going to a beer bar? Arguments: I. No. It is inappropriate to prevent mature individuals above 18 (who can vote) from such recreation. II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be increased. III. No. There is no such curb in certain Western countries. IV. Yes. Disallowing entry will help prevent bad company and harmful habits.
• Critical reasoning – Should the government ban all forms of protests (strikes and processions)? Arguments: I. Yes. That is the only way to teach employees discipline. II. No. The government cannot deprive citizens of basic rights. III. Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruptions.
• Critical reasoning – Should children be prevented completely from watching television? Arguments: I. No. Television carries vital educational information. II. Yes. Television hampers children’s studies. III. Yes. Some programmes with sex and violence can misguide young children. IV. No. Television is the only way to educate the masses.
• Critical reasoning – Legalization of mercy death (euthanasia) Statement: Should those suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire? Arguments: I. No. Allowing this goes against basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients in terrible suffering with no chance of recovery should be liberated from pain through mercy death. III. No. Mercy death is still killing, and killing can never be legalized.
• Critical reasoning – Should seniority be the only criterion for promotion? Arguments: I. No. It would be unjust to juniors who are more deserving and suitable for higher roles. II. Yes. Otherwise senior employees feel humiliated. III. Yes. Senior employees are more experienced and must be rewarded for that.
• Critical reasoning – Admissions policy for professional courses Statement: Should admission be based on past academic performance rather than entrance tests? Arguments: I. Yes. It helps candidates who cannot afford the costs of entrance tests. II. Yes. Many high scorers in school exams do poorly on entrance tests. III. No. Boards/universities assess differently; entrance tests provide a common yardstick.
• Critical reasoning – Reservation in private-sector jobs (similar to public sector) Arguments: I. Yes. It would expand opportunities for weaker sections and help reduce the gap between affluent and disadvantaged groups. II. No. The private sector receives no government assistance; it should not be burdened by such policies. III. No. Nowhere in the world is such a practice followed. IV. No. Private managements would not agree to these compulsions.
• Public administration — should employees participate in factory management in India? Statement: Should workers and employees be allowed to participate in the management of factories in India? Arguments: I. Yes — it is the present management theory. II. No — many workers are illiterate, so their contributions will not be valuable. III. Yes — employee-owned companies generally show higher productivity. IV. No — employee/union ownership drives up salaries and wages.
• Equal employment opportunity for women — evaluating the arguments Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in employment across every field? Arguments: I. Yes — women are equally capable. II. No — they must shoulder household responsibilities. III. Yes — they should also participate in the outside world.
• Privatizing IITs — weighing the claims Statement: Should government-established Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) be privatized? Arguments: I. Yes — privatization would make the institutes financially healthy, competitive, and quality-conscious. II. Yes — privatization is the key of the new era; we cannot survive without it. III. No — standards of education at these institutes will fall.
• Single university for all of India — practicality vs. uniformity Statement: Should there be only one university throughout India? Arguments: I. Yes — this is the only way to bring uniformity in educational standards. II. No — this is administratively impossible. III. Yes — this will make degrees comparable for jobs.