Logical Deduction :: Statements And Arguments :: General questions

• Statements And Arguments - General questions

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement : Should the rule of wearing a helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motorbike be enforced strictly?

Arguments: 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 the rest of the body is not.

IV. Yes. It is a necessity as the head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, the rule has been devised for the safety of two-wheeler riders, as the 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 requires 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 discretion of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement : should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions ? 

Arguments : I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.

II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can-earn their living by giving tuitions.

III.Yes.only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.

IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable

Answer:

Explanation:

Only III is strong.

The lure of earning private tuition reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers toward the students in schools. So, if tuition are banned, students can benefit from their teacher's knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I do not. However, a person cannot be banned from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuition can survive with the school teacher holding tuition too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement: Should all the indirect taxes in India be combined into a single tax on all commodities?

Arguments: I. Yes. This will considerably simplify the tax collection mechanism and the cost of collecting tax will also reduce.

II. Yes. The manufacturers and traders will be benefited by this which in turn will boost tax collection.

III. No. No other country has adopted such a system.

Answer:

Explanation:

Only I and II are strong.Clearly, both I and II hold strong, as they provide very convincing reasons, for a single tax system would help get rid of multifarious taxes on a product. Besides, the idea of imitating of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument III does not hold strong

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statement : Should the public sector undertakings be Allowed to adopt a hire and fire policy ?

Arguments : I. Yes. This will help the public sector undertakings to get rid of non-performing employees and reward the performing employees.

II. No. This will give an unjust handle to the management and they may use it indiscriminately.

III. Yes. This will help increase the level of efficiency of these organizations and these will become profitable establishments.

Answer:

Explanation:

'Hire and fire policy' implies 'taking up the performing employees and discarding the non-performing ones'. Clearly, such a policy would stand out to encourage employees to work hard and devotedly to retain their jobs and thus enhance the productivity and profitability of the organizations. So, both arguments I and III hold strong. Argument II seems to be vague in light of this.

The following question consists of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement : Should mercy death be legalized,i.e. all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire ?

Arguments: I. No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death.

III. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, mercy death will Berve as a liberation to those to whom living is more difficult and painful. But then, it is an inhuman,act and does not appeal. So, both arguments II and III hold strong. Besides, it becomes our moral duty to encourage such people to live their lives to the fullest and support them through the crisis, and not demoralize them by allowing them,to die if they wish to. Hence, argument I also holds strong.

• Statements And Arguments - General questions