Logical Deduction :: Statements And Arguments :: General questions

• Statements And Arguments - General questions

The following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statement: Should there be a concentration of foreign investment in only few states? 

Arguments: I. No. It is against the policy of the overall development of the country.

II. Yes. A large number of states lack the infrastructure to attract foreign investment

Answer:

Explanation:

An equitable distribution of foreign investment is a must for uniform development all over the country. So, argument I holds. Also, no backward state ought to be neglected, rather such states should be prepared and shaped up to attract foreign investment as well. So, II does not hold.

The following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statements: Should India give away Kashmir to Pakistan?

Arguments: I. No. Kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India.

II. Yes. This would help settle conflicts.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, India cannot part with a state that is a major foreign exchange earner to it. So, argument I holds strong. Further giving away a piece of land unconditionally and unreasonably is no solution to settle disputes. So, argument II is vague.

The following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statements: Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get a salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?

Arguments: I. No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?

II. Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.

Answer:

Explanation:

A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. AIso, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.

The following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statement:  Should the educated unemployed youth be paid "unemployment allowance" by the Government?

Arguments: I. Yes. it will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kickstart some 'self-employment' venture.

II. No. It will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.

Answer:

Explanation:

Young people, who do not get employment due to a large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given an allowance. So that they can, support themselves. So, the argument I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So, argument II also holds.

The following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement: Should agriculture in rural India be mechanized?

Arguments: I. Yes. It would lead to higher production. II. No. Many villagers would be left unemployed

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase production. So, argument I is strong enough. Argument II is vague because mechanization will only eliminate wasteful employment, not create unemployment.

• Statements And Arguments - General questions