Statement and Argument

Statement and Argument

Easy Questions
Moderate Questions
Difficult Questions
Statement and Argument Tutorial

Verbal Reasoning

Eligibility Test
Logical order of words
Mathematical operation and symbol notation
Clock and calender
Problem Based on ages
Alphabet Test
Input Output
Linear Arrangement
Matrix Arrangement
Circular Arrangement
Logical Connectivity
Games And Tournament
Analogy
Classification
Number Series
Letter and Symbol Series
Coding Decoding
Sequencing and Formation
Direction and Distance
Sitting Arrangement
Blood Relations
Logical Venn Diagram
Cubes
Logical Problems
Theme Detection
Logical Deduction
Matching Definitions
Making Judgments
Logical Games
Verification of Truth/Lie of Statements
Routes and Networks
Time Sequence
Ranking Test
Inserting and Missing Character
Grid and Matrices
Syllogism
Statement and Argument
Statement and Assumption
Statement and Courses of Action
Statement and Conclusion
Cause and Effect
Grouping and Team Formation
Assertion and Reason
Situation Reaction Test

Direction: Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two argument's numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

  1. Statement:
    Should the oil companies be allowed to fix the price of petroleum products depending on market conditions?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes. This is the only way to make the oil companies commercially viable.
    II. No. This will put additional burden on the retail prices of essential commodities and will cause a lot of hardships to the masses.










  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Clearly, Oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds, strong.

    Correct Option: B

    Clearly, Oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds, strong.

  1. Statement:
    Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland ?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, they leave their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
    II. No. they leave their homes because of hanger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.










  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately.Argument I against the statement, is vague.

    Correct Option: B

    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.

  1. Statement:
    Should agriculture in rural India be mechanized?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes. It would lead to higher production.
    II. No. Many villagers would be left unemployed.










  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase the production.

    Correct Option: A

    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.

Direction: In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ''Strong'' arguments and ''Weak'' arguments insofar as they relate to the question. ''Strong'' arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. ''Weak'' arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

  1. Statement:
    Should private Investors be allowed to invest in defence production?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes. We should stress on quality. If private investors are allowed to invest in defence production, a competition for good quality will arise among them. This will help us to harness our defence sector whit ammunitions of good quality.
    II. No. It will be better to keep our defence sector under veil, otherwise it will create threat to the integrity of the nation.










  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    I is strong argument. It will definitely help to improve the quality of defence goods, because competition always helps to improve quality at lesser expenses. II is strong because the nation's integrity cannot be compromised.

    Correct Option: E

    I is strong argument. It will definitely help to improve the quality of defence goods, because competition always helps to improve quality at lesser expenses. II is strong because the nation's integrity cannot be compromised.

  1. Statement:
    Would the resumption of cricketing ties contribute to normalisation of Indo-Pak relation?
    Arguments:
    I. No, normalisation of Indo-Pak relation needs bipartite dialogue to sort out debatable problems.
    II. Yes, music , sports etc bring harmony among peoples and it is a well-known fact that sport will definitely help ensure normalization of relations.










  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    International sporting events were originally conceived as a promoted of peace and harmony. Hence II is strong. I is not strong because it diverts the question form ''cricketing ties'' to ''bipartite dialogue.''.

    Correct Option: B

    International sporting events were originally conceived as a promoted of peace and harmony. Hence II is strong. I is not strong because it diverts the question form ''cricketing ties'' to ''bipartite dialogue.''.