Statement and Argument


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 there be a law against superstition in India?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, it is a belief in magical and similar influences, in idea or practice based on this.
    II. No, it has been recognised by our forefathers and has a strong base in our society.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    I is not an argument. It defines superstition. Hence, I is not strong. II is not strong because it obsessed with the wrong assumption that a belief which prevails in our society deeply needs no intervention of law.

    Correct Option: D

    I is not an argument. It defines superstition. Hence, I is not strong. II is not strong because it obsessed with the wrong assumption that a belief which prevails in our society deeply needs no intervention of law.


  1. Statement:
    Should there be death punishment for those who are involved in manufacturing spurious drugs?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, mass murder for the sake of profit should be treated only by one law -death penalty.
    II. No, the main objective of the punishment is to bring reform in a convicted person by punishing him/her.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Not all spurious drugs lead to mass murder. So we cannot assume I to be true. Hence I is weak. II is strong because death sentence is self-defeating. If one dies, how can one be reformed?

    Correct Option: B

    Not all spurious drugs lead to mass murder. So we cannot assume I to be true. Hence I is weak. II is strong because death sentence is self-defeating. If one dies, how can one be reformed?



  1. Statement:
    Should companies' donation to political parties be banned in India?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, it was banned during 1969 and 1985 also.
    II. No, donation to political parties is not a new thing in the country and has been in existence right from 1956.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Both I and II are weak arguments. I merely mentions the two occasions when the donation was banned. It does not pinpoint the core issue. II merely mentions the year from when the donation exists. It adds no argumentative substance in support of 'No'.

    Correct Option: D

    Both I and II are weak arguments. I merely mentions the two occasions when the donation was banned. It does not pinpoint the core issue. II merely mentions the year from when the donation exists. It adds no argumentative substance in support of 'No'.


  1. Statement:
    Should there be uniform civil code in India?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, many personal laws relating to marriage, inheritance, guardianship, divorce, maintenance and property relations in all communities are unjust, especially unjust to women.
    II. No, India has a rich cultural mosaic and any artificial singularity, sought to be achieved through a common civil code, would only make the society more fragmented.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    I is strong because it will bring some reform in our society and help ensure justice for women. II is strong because it will ruin the cultural identity and abet disharmony in society.

    Correct Option: E

    I is strong because it will bring some reform in our society and help ensure justice for women. II is strong because it will ruin the cultural identity and abet disharmony in society.



  1. Statement:
    Should all Mig-21 fighters be banned owing to frequent accidents of this aircraft?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes, it has become flying coffin.
    II. No, almost all the accidents were due to human error.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Argument I lacks substance and is hence weak. That it is a ''flying coffin'' is evident from the statement itself. II is strong because it makes no sense to ban the aircraft when the responsibility lies somewhere else.

    Correct Option: B

    Argument I lacks substance and is hence weak. That it is a ''flying coffin'' is evident from the statement itself. II is strong because it makes no sense to ban the aircraft when the responsibility lies somewhere else.