The question below is followed by arguments. Classify them into strong and weak arguments.
Excavations in historical sites should be funded by the government.
I. Yes : Such excavations reveal the history of the nation.
II. No : The expenditure is too high and valuable things are rarely found.
Funding is the concern in the argument. Hence, II is strong. I talks of another issue that is not connected with the argument.
Statement followed by two arguments is given. You have to decide which of the given statements is a strong argument and which is weak argument. Give answer (A) if only first argument is strong, give answer (B) if only second argument is strong, give answer (C) if either first or second argument is strong, give answer (D) if neither first nor second argument is strong and given answer (E) if both first and second arguments are strong.
Statement—Should competitive examinations for selecting candidates for jobs, be of objective test only ?
I. Yes, the assessment of objective test is reliable.
II. No, the number of questions to be answered is always very large.
Direction(3-10): 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.
(1) If only argument I is strong
(2) If only argument II is strong
(3) If either I or II is strong
(4) If neither I nor II is strong and
(5) If both I and II are strong.
Statement : should there be a complete ban on manufacture of firecrackers in India?
I : No. This will render thousands of workers jobless.
II : Yes. The firecraker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent.
Clearly, banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. So argument I holds. However to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close down the industry but strict laws against child abuse should be enforced and legal actions taken. so, argument II is vague.
Statement : should education be made compulsory for all children upto the age of 14?
I : Yes this will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
II : Yes this would increase the standard of living.
Clearly, education is necessary to make the children better citizens. So. none of the argument strong enough
Statement : Should the tuitionn fees in all post-graduate courses be hiked considerably?
I : Yes. This will bring in some sense of seriousness among the students and will improve the quality
II : No. This will force the meritorious poor students to stay away from post-graduate course.
A hike in fees is no means to make the students more serious in studies. So argument I is vague, and argument II follows
Statement: Should we scrap the system of formal education beyond graduation?
I. Yes. It will mean taking employment at an early date.
II. No. It will mean lack of depth of knowledge.
Clearly, argument I is vague because at present too, many fields are open to all after graduation. However, eliminating the post-graduate courses would abolish higher and specialized studies which lead to understanding things better and deeply. So, argument II is valid.
Statement :Should concrete roads be built all over the country instead of bitumen roads ?
I. Yes. As concrete roads last 10 times longer than bitumen roads, saves 20% in terms of fuel burnt by vehicles and is cheaper to lay than bitumen roads.
II. No. Bitumen is 3 times cheaper, saves 15% of fuel burnt by vehicles and is half as costly to lay than the concrete roads.
Statement I and II are strong argument but they are contradict each other and hence they cannot both be strong at the same time. Hence, either I or II strong but not both.
Statement : Yoga be introduced as a part of the curriculum by schools ?
I. Yes: This will help students improve their mental ability.
II. No: This will not help students to improve studentship qualities but will burden them with extra-school-hours.
Both the statements, if true, are valid and strong arguments.
Statement : Should student union in universities be abolished?
I : Yes. Student union can pay full attemtopm to their career development.
II : No. All the great leaders had been students union leaders
Clearly, abolishing students uion would relieve the students of the unnecessary activities and enable them to concentrate well on studes. So argument I holds