Logical Deduction :: Statements And Arguments :: General questions

• Statements And Arguments - General questions

The following question consist 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 persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India ?

Argument: I. No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country.

II. Yes. It is democracy let people decide whom to vote for.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be  allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.

The following question consist 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 tuition fees in all post-graduate courses be hiked considerably?

Arguments : I. Yes. This will bring in some sense of seriousness among the students and will improve the quality.

II. No. This will force the meritorious poor students to stay away from post - graduate courses.

Answer:

Explanation:

A hike in fees is no means to make the students more serious in their studies. So, the argument I is vague. However, with the increase in fees, poor meritorious students would not be able to afford post-graduate studies. So, argument II holds. 

The following question consist 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 vehicles older than 15 years be rejected in metros in India?

Arguments: I. Yes. This is a significant step to lower down the pollution level in metros

II. No. It will be very difficult for vehicle owners to shift to other parts in the country because they will not get suitable job for their very existence.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones, So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.

The following question consist 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 higher education be restricted to only those who can bear the expenditure?

Arguments: I. Yes. Higher education is very costly, hence it should not be given free.

II. No. There are a large number of brilliant students who cannot afford to pay and they should be given higher education.

Answer:

Explanation:

For the all-around progress of the nation, all the students, especially the talented and intelligent ones must avail of higher education, even if the government has to pay for it. So, only argument II holds.

The following question consist 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: Is paying the ransom or agreeing to the conditions of kidnappers of political figures, a proper course of action?

Arguments:  I. The victims must be saved at all costs.

II. No. It encourages the kidnappers to continue their sinister activities.

Answer:

Explanation:

Both arguments are strong enough. The conditions have to be agreed to in order to save the life of the victims, though actually, they ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnapper.

• Statements And Arguments - General questions