Strong And Weak Argument

1.

Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. 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. Statement: Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives? Arguments: I. Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants in rural areas. II. No. Rural areas are already cheaper and less complex than urban areas. So, why offer extra incentives!

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

Correct Answer
A. Only argument I is strong

Explanation
Argument I is a strong argument because it states that incentives are essential for attracting government servants in rural areas. This suggests that without incentives, it may be difficult to attract qualified individuals to work in rural areas, which could lead to a shortage of government servants in those areas. Argument II is a weak argument because it simply states that rural areas are already cheaper and less complex than urban areas, without addressing the issue of attracting government servants.

Rate this question:

2.

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. Statement: Should there be a track on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency? Arguments: I. Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgment for casting their vote. II. No. In a democratic country, any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

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

Correct Answer
E. Both I and II are strong

Explanation
Both arguments I and II are strong. Argument I suggests that having a track on the maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections would make the elections more meaningful as voters can make a considered judgment when casting their vote. This implies that voters would have more options to choose from and can evaluate each candidate before making a decision. Argument II suggests that in a democratic country, there should be no restrictions on who can contest parliamentary elections as long as they fulfill the eligibility criteria. This upholds the principle of democracy, which allows any eligible citizen to participate in the electoral process.

Rate this question:

3.

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. Statement: Is it vital to spend so much money on advertisements? Arguments: I. Yes. It is an essential concomitant in a capitalist economy. II. No. It leads to wastage of resources.

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

Correct Answer
A. Only argument I is strong

Explanation
The given question is asking whether it is vital to spend so much money on advertisements. Argument I states that it is essential in a capitalist economy, suggesting that advertisements play a crucial role in promoting products and driving economic growth. This argument is strong because it recognizes the importance of advertising in a market-driven economy. Argument II states that it leads to wastage of resources, suggesting that the money spent on advertisements could be better utilized elsewhere. However, this argument is not as strong as argument I because it does not consider the potential benefits and positive impact of advertising. Therefore, only argument I is strong.

Rate this question:

4.

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. Statement: Should all the legislators be forced to resign from their profession? Arguments: I. Yes. They will be able to devote more time for the country. II. No, nobody will contest election.

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

Correct Answer
A. Only argument I is strong

Explanation
The correct answer is "Only argument I is strong" because the argument states that all legislators should be forced to resign from their profession in order to devote more time to the country. This argument suggests that by resigning, legislators will have more time and energy to focus on their duties and responsibilities towards the country. However, argument II, which states that nobody will contest the election, does not directly support the idea of legislators resigning from their profession. It is not necessary for nobody to contest the election if legislators resign.

Rate this question:

5.

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. Statement: Should 'computer knowledge' be made a compulsory subject at secondary school level? Arguments: I. No, our need is 'bread' for everyone; we should not follow western methods. II. Yes, we cannot compete in the international market without equipping our young generation with computers.

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

Correct Answer
B. Only argument II is strong

Explanation
The correct answer is "Only argument II is strong" because it provides a valid reason for making computer knowledge a compulsory subject at the secondary school level. Argument II states that without equipping the young generation with computers, we cannot compete in the international market. This implies that computer knowledge is necessary for success in the modern world and supports the idea of making it a compulsory subject. Argument I, on the other hand, is weak as it focuses on the need for "bread" for everyone and opposes following western methods, which is not directly related to the question of computer knowledge.

Rate this question:

6.

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. Statement: Should colleges be given the status of a university in India? Arguments: I. Yes. Colleges are in a better position to assess the student's performance and therefore the degrees will be more valid. II. No. It is Utopian to think that there will not be nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees by colleges.

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

Correct Answer
D. Neither I nor II is strong

Explanation
The given answer suggests that neither argument I nor argument II is strong. This means that both arguments have weaknesses and are not convincing enough to support or oppose the idea of giving colleges the status of a university in India. Argument I assumes that colleges are better equipped to assess student performance and that their degrees will be more valid, but it fails to provide evidence or reasoning to support this claim. Argument II dismisses the idea based on the assumption that nepotism and corruption will always exist in awarding degrees by colleges, but it does not consider the potential measures and regulations that can be put in place to prevent such issues.

Rate this question:

7.

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. Statement: Should the politicians and celebrities who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment? Arguments: I. Yes. The prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally. II. No. It is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.

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

Correct Answer
B. Only argument II is strong

Explanation
The correct answer is "Only argument II is strong." Argument II is strong because it emphasizes the principle of equality before the law, which is a fundamental aspect of justice and fairness. It suggests that regardless of someone's status or prestige, they should be treated equally when it comes to facing the consequences of committing a crime. Argument I, on the other hand, is weak because it assumes that prestigious people do not commit crimes intentionally, which may not always be the case.

Rate this question:

8.

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. Statement: Can pollution be controlled? Arguments: I. Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it creates and cooperates accordingly to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled. II. No. The factories, industries, crowded highways and ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.

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

Correct Answer
C. Either I or II is strong

Explanation
Both arguments I and II present valid points regarding the control of pollution. Argument I suggests that if everyone realizes the hazards and cooperates, pollution can be controlled. This highlights the importance of awareness and collective action. Argument II acknowledges the challenges posed by factories, industries, crowded highways, and a growing population. These factors contribute to pollution and may be difficult to control. Therefore, either argument I or II can be considered strong in supporting the statement that pollution can be controlled.

Rate this question: