Statement and Argument


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 there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central government ?
    Arguments:
    I. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
    II. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure.Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favor to some people at the cost of government funds.

    Correct Option: B

    Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong. Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favor to some people at the cost of government funds. so, argument I does not hold.



  1. Statement:
    Should non - non vegetarian food be totally banned in our country ?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes. It is expensive and therefor it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
    II. No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right.

    Correct Option: B

    Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.


  1. Statement:
    Should Indian become a permanent member of 'UN' s security Council ?
    Arguments:
    I. Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity
    II. No. let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.

    Correct Option: A

    A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. So, argument I holds strong. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.



  1. Statement:
    Should the persons below the age of 18 years be allowed to join armed forces ?
    Arguments:
    I. No. Persons below the age of 18 do not attain both physical and mental maturity to shoulder such burden.
    II. Yes. This will help the country develop its armed forces which will serve the country for a longer time.











  1. View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum

    The armed forces must consist of physically strong and mentally mature individuals to take care of defence properly. So, argument I holds strong. Clearly, argument II is vague.

    Correct Option: A

    The armed forces must consist of physically strong and mentally mature individuals to take care of defence properly. So, argument I holds strong. Clearly, argument II is vague.