1. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the council of ministers once appointed be kept the same for the entire period intervening two elections?
Arguments :
I. No. Shuffling of ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process.
II. Yes. The ministers do not get a hold on their portfolio unless they are kept for a longer duration.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Shuffling of Cabinet ministers is just not a regular process, but a step to ensure proper working and implementation of schemes and avoid corruption. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
2. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments :
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Only III is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.
3. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
II. No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
III. No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
IV. Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.
4. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments :
I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
III. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) None of these
Explanation: Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
5. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
II. Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
III. No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
IV. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold.
6. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should judiciary be independent of the executive?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.
II. No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I holds.
7. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments :
I. No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
II. Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
8. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should students take part in politics?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.
II. No. They should study and build up their career.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.
9. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.
II. No. Such polls are conducted all over the world.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.
10. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
II. No. It will lead to an end of democracy.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.