Strong & Weak Arguments Set 9

Q1. Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India?

Arguments:

No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country.
Yes. It is democracy – let people decide whom to vote.
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:

Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.

 

Q2. Statement: Should officers accepting bribe be punished?

Arguments:

No. Certain circumstances may have compelled them to take bribe.
Yes. They should do the job they are entrusted with, honestly.
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, officers are paid duly for the jobs they do. So, they must do it honestly. Thus, argument II alone holds.

 

Q3. Statement: Should there be a complete ban on use of all types of chemical pesticides in India?

Arguments:

No. The pests will destroy all the crops and the farmers will have nothing to harvest.
Yes. The chemical pesticides used in agriculture pollute the water underground and this has become a serious health hazard.
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 E

Explanation:

Clearly, pesticides are meant to prevent the crops from harmful pests. But at the same time, they get washed away with water and contaminate the groundwater. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.

 

Q4. Statement: Should cutting of trees be banned altogether?

Arguments:

Yes. It is very much necessary to do so to restore ecological balance.
No. A total ban would harm timber based industries.
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 E

Explanation:

Clearly, trees play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and so must be preserved. So, argument I holds. Also, trees form the basic source of timber and a complete ban on cutting of trees would harm timber based industries. So, only a controlled cutting of trees should be allowed and the loss replenished by planting more trees. So, argument II is also valid.

 

Q5. Statement: Should there be a restriction on the migration of people from one state to another state in India?

Arguments:

No. Any Indian citizen has a basic right to stay at any place of his/her choice and hence they cannot be stopped.
Yes. This is the way to effect an equitable distribution of resources across the states in India.
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:

Clearly, argument I holds strong, while argument II is vague.

 

Q6. Statement: Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?

Arguments:

Yes. They make their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
No. They leave their homes because of hunger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.
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, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.

 

Q7. Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?

Arguments:

No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.
Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances.
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:

Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.

 

Q8. Statement: Should there be more than one High Court in each state in India?

Arguments:

No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers’ money.
Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time.
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, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be ‘utilization’, not ‘wastage’ of money. So, argument I does not hold.

 

Q9. Statement: Should judiciary be independent of the executive?

Arguments:

Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option A

Explanation:

Clearly, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I holds.

 

Q10. 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:

No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
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
E. Both I and II are strong

Answer & Explanation

Answer: Option B

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.