Strong & Weak Arguments Set 3

Q1. Statement: Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary/ Legislative Assembly elections?

Arguments:

Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 lose their dynamism and will power.
No. The life span is so increased that people remain physically and mentally active even up to the age of 80.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option D

Explanation:

The age of a person is no criterion for judging his mental capabilities and administrative qualities. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

 

Q2. Statement: Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?

Arguments:

Yes. It will create job opportunities.
No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option C

Explanation:

Opening up of new industries is advantageous in opening more employment avenues, and disadvantageous in that it adds to the pollution. So, either of the arguments holds strong.

 

Q3. Statement: Should high chimneys be installed in industries?

Arguments:

Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.
No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option A

Explanation:

Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and animal life. So, argument I alone holds.

 

Q4. Statement: Does India need so many plans for development?

Arguments:

Yes. Nothing can be achieved without proper planning.
No. Too much time, money and energy is wasted on planning.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option A

Explanation:

Before indulging in new development programme it is much necessary to plan the exact target, policies and their implementation and the allocation of funds which shows the right direction to work. So, argument I holds strong. Also, planning ensures full utilization of available resources and funds and stepwise approach towards the target. So, spending a part of money on it is no wastage. Thus, argument II is not valid.

 

Q5. Statement: Should articles of only deserving authors be allowed to be published?

Arguments:

Yes. It will save a lot of paper which is in short supply.
No. It is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option B

Explanation:

Clearly, I does not provide a strong reason in support of the statement. Also, it is not possible to analyze the really deserving and not deserving. So/argument II holds strong.

 

Q6. Statement: Should colleges be given the status of a university in India?

Arguments:

Yes. Colleges are in a better position to assess the student’s performance and therefore the degrees will be more valid.
No. It is Utopian to think that there will not be nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees by colleges.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option D

Explanation:

Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument I is vague. Also, at this level the awarding of degrees is impartial and simply based on his performance. So, argument II also does not hold.

 

Q7. Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment?

Arguments:

Yes. The prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.
No. It is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option B

Explanation:

The Constitution of India has laid down the doctrine of ‘equality before the law’. So, argument II holds strong. Also, we cannot judge the intentions of a person behind committing a crime, So, argument I is vague.

 

Q8. Statement: Can pollution be controlled?

Arguments:

Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled.
No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option C

Explanation:

The control of pollution, on one hand, seems to be impossible because of the ever-growing needs and the disconcern of the people but, on the other hand, the control is possible by a joint effort. So, either of the arguments will hold strong.

 

Q9. Statement: Should the railways in India be privatized in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises?

Arguments:

Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public.
No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option D

Explanation:

Privatization would no doubt lead to better services. But saying that this is the ‘only way’ is wrong. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II also seems to be vague.

 

Q10. Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?

Arguments:

Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.
No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option A

Explanation:

Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.