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 all youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?

Arguments: I. No. It is not correct to prevent mature youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.

II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.

III. No. There is no such curb in western countries.

IV Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, our constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, the argument I hold is strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be led astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating western countries holds no relevance. so, neither II nor III holds 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 religion be taught in our school?

Arguments: I. No. Ours is a secular state.

II. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.

III. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfill its role in the 21st century.

Answer:

Explanation:

Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact; these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.

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 students graduating in any discipline desirous of pursuing post-graduation of the subjects of their choice be allowed to enroll in the post-graduate courses ?

Arguments : I. Yes. The students are the best judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions,for joining post-graduate courses.

II. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enroll in post-graduate courses and the students must fulfill such conditions.

III..No. There are not enough institutes offering post-graduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.

Answer:

Explanation:

Only argument II is strong. The students cannot be enrolled in the courses just on the basis of their interests, but their compatibility with the same also matters. So, I does not hold. Besides, lack of institutes is no criteria to deny post-graduate courses to students. So, argument III also does not hold, II provides a genuine reason and thus holds strong.

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 the consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India?

Arguments : I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases.

II. No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants.

III. No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on human body.

IV. Yes. It is banned in many other countries also.

Answer:

Explanation:

The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid.  Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intake of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless its harmful effects have been proved. So, III holds strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by other countries. So, IV also does not hold.

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 admissions to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than entrance tests?

Arguments : I. Yes.It will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.

II. Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their academic qualification examinations do not perform well in such entrance examinations.

III. No. The standard of examination and assessment conducted by different Boards and Universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because- of the expenditure, it entails. So, argument I does not hold. AIso students who are intelligent enough to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance tests. So II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the candidates to uniform test and assessment. so, only III holds strong.

• Statements And Arguments - General questions