Statement and Argument
Direction: Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the argument is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.
- Statement:
Should there be only few banks in place of numerous banks in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This will help secure the investor's money as these big banks will be able to withstand intermitten market related shocks.
II. No. A large number of people will lose their jobs as after the merger many employees will be redundant.
III. Yes. This will help consolidate the entire banking industry and will lead to healthy competition
-
View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum
The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides, even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant.Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus,none of the arguments hold strong.
Correct Option: A
The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides, even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant.Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus,none of the arguments hold strong.
- Statement:
Should the income be generated out of agricultural activities be taxed?
Argument:
I. No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed.
II. Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources.
III. Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
-
View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum
clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
Correct Option: C
clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
- Statement:
Should the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike be enforced strictly?
Argument:
I. Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all.
II. No. Each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion.
III. No. It does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and rest of the body is not.
IV. Yes. It is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.
-
View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum
Clearly, the rule has been devised or the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two-wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this required strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the direction of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.
Correct Option: C
Clearly, the rule has been devised or the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two-wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this required strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the direction of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.
- Statements:
Should all those who are convicted for heinous crimes like murder or rape, beyond all reasonable doubts be given capital punished or death penalty?
Arguments:
I. No. the death penalty should be given only in very rate and exceptional cases.
II. Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take other' lives or indulge in inhuman activities
III. Yes. Such sever punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
IV. No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.
-
View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum
Clearly, a 'person commuting a heinous crime like murder or rape should be so punished as to set an example for other not to attempt such acts in future. So, argument III holds strong. Argument I is vague while the use of the word 'only' in argument II makes it weak. Also, it cannot be assured whether a criminal is really repentant of his acts or not, he may also exhibit so just to get rid off punishment. So, argument IV also does not hold.
Correct Option: C
Clearly, a 'person commuting a heinous crime like murder or rape should be so punished as to set an example for other not to attempt such acts in future. So, argument III holds strong. Argument I is vague while the use of the word 'only' in argument II makes it weak. Also, it cannot be assured whether a criminal is really repentant of his acts or not, he may also exhibit so just to get rid off punishment. So, argument IV also does not hold.
- Statement:
Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments:
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.
-
View Hint View Answer Discuss in Forum
The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I or II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus IV also does not hold strong . However, it is the right of an individual to get the post or which he fulfills the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, augment III hold strong.
Correct Option: D
The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I or II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus IV also does not hold strong . However, it is the right of an individual to get the post or which he fulfills the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, augment III hold strong.
