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.
Give answer:
- (A) If only argument I is strong
- (B) If only argument II is strong
- (C) If either I or II is strong
- (D) If neither I nor II is strong and
- (E) If both I and II are strong.
| 26. |
Statement: Should adult education programme be given priority over compulsory education programme?
Arguments:
- No. It will also help in success of compulsory education programme.
- Yes. It will help to eliminate the adult illiteracy.
|
| A. |
Only argument I is strong |
| B. |
Only argument II is strong |
| C. |
Either I or II is strong |
| D. |
Neither I nor II is strong |
| E. |
Both I and II are strong |
Answer: Option B
Explanation:
Clearly, argument I gives a reason in support of the statement and so it does not hold strong against it. The adult education programme needs to be given priority because it shall eliminate adult illiteracy and thus help in further spread of education. So, only argument II is strong enough.
|
| 27. |
Statement: Should new universities be established in India?
Arguments:
- No. We have still not achieved the target for literacy.
- No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people.
|
| A. |
Only argument I is strong |
| B. |
Only argument II is strong |
| C. |
Either I or II is strong |
| D. |
Neither I nor II is strong |
| E. |
Both I and II are strong |
Answer: Option E
Explanation:
Clearly, instead of improving upon higher education, increasing the literacy rate should be heeded first. So, argument I holds. Also, more number of universities will produce more degree holders with the number of jobs remaining the same, thus increasing unemployment. So, argument II also holds strong.
|
| 28. |
Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country?
Arguments:
- Yes. It is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
- No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.
|
| A. |
Only argument I is strong |
| B. |
Only argument II is strong |
| C. |
Either I or II is strong |
| D. |
Neither I nor II is strong |
| E. |
Both I and II are strong |
Answer: Option B
Explanation:
Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.
|
| 29. |
Statement: Should a total ban be put on trapping wild animals?
Arguments:
- Yes. Trappers are making a lot of money;
- No. Bans on hunting and trapping are not effective.
|
| A. |
Only argument I is strong |
| B. |
Only argument II is strong |
| C. |
Either I or II is strong |
| D. |
Neither I nor II is strong |
| E. |
Both I and II are strong |
Answer: Option D
Explanation:
Clearly, ban is necessary to protect our natural environment. So, none of the arguments is strong enough.
|
| 30. |
Statement: Should Government close down loss-making public sector enterprises?
Arguments:
- No. All employees will lose their jobs, security and earning, what would they do?
- Yes. In a competitive world the rule is ‘survival of the fittest’.
|
| A. |
Only argument I is strong |
| B. |
Only argument II is strong |
| C. |
Either I or II is strong |
| D. |
Neither I nor II is strong |
| E. |
Both I and II are strong |
Answer: Option A
Explanation:
Closing down public-sector enterprises will definitely throw the engaged persons out of employment. So, argument I holds. Also, closing down is no solution for a loss-making enterprise. Rather, its causes of failure should be studied, analyzed and the essential reforms implemented. Even if this does not work out, the enterprise may be privatized. So, argument II is vague,
|
Related
