Directions : Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Give answer (a) if only argument I is strong; (b) if only argument II is strong; (c) if either I or II is strong; (d) if neither I nor II is strong and (e) if both I and II are strong
Q1. Statement: Should agriculture in rural India be mechanized?
Arguments: I. Yes. It should lead to higher production.
II. No. Many villagers would be left unemployed. [MAT, 2004]
Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase the production. So, argument I is strong enough. Argument II is vague because mechanization will only eliminate wasteful employment, not create unemployment.
Q2. Statement: Should girls learn arts like judo and karate?
Arguments: I. Yes. It will enable them to defend themselves from rogues and ruffians.
II. No, They will lose their feminine grace.
Explanation – Learning martial arts is necessary for girls for self-defence. So, argument I holds. However, argument II is vague since a training in these arts has nothing to do with their feminine grace.
Q3. 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.
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.
Q4. Statement: Should the educated unemployed youth be paid “unemployment allowance” by the Government?
Arguments: I. Yes. It will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kickstart some ‘self employment’ venture.
II. No. It will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth. [Bank PO, 2003]
Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must sy=urely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. So, argument I is valid. However, such allowance would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So, argument II also holds.
Q5. Statement: Should foreign films be banned in India?
Arguments: I. Yes. They depict an alien culture which adversely affects our avlues.
II. No. Foreign films are of a high artistic standard.
Clearly, foreign films depict the alien culture but this only helps in learning more. So, argument I does not hold. Also, the reason slated in argument II is not strong enough in contradicting the ban. So, it also does not hold.
Q6. 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 doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patients 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
Q7. Statement: Should higher education be completely stopped for sometime?
Arguments: I. No. It will hamper the country’s future progress.
II. Yes. It will reduce the educated unemployment.
Clearly, higher education is not the cause of unemployment. In fact, it has created greater job opportunities. So, argument II is vague. Also, higher education promotes the country’s development. So, argument I holds.
Q8. Statement: Should there be more than one hIgh Courts in each state in India?
Arguments: I. No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers money.
II. Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time. [IBPS, 2002]
Clearly, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. Sp, 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: Are nuclear families better than joint families?
Arguments: I. No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work.
II. Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.
Clearly, with so many people around in a joint family, there is more security. Also, work is shared. So, argument I holds. In nuclear families there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.
Q10. Statement: Should India give away Kashmir to Pakistan?
Arguments: I. No. kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India.
II. Yes. this would help settle conflicts.
Clearly, India cannot part with a state that is a major foreign exchange earner to it. So, argument I holds strong. Further, giving away a piece of land unconditionally and unreasonably is no solution to settle disputes. So, argument Ii is vague.