All Exams >
RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA >
General Intelligence & Reasoning for RRB NTPC/ASM >
All Questions
All questions of Arguments for RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA Exam
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should ‘Politics’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. An informed electorate is the key to a strong democracy.
II. No. Politics and education should not be mixed as it will affect both adversely.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should ‘Politics’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. An informed electorate is the key to a strong democracy.
II. No. Politics and education should not be mixed as it will affect both adversely.
Statement:
Should ‘Politics’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. An informed electorate is the key to a strong democracy.
II. No. Politics and education should not be mixed as it will affect both adversely.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Archana iyer answered |
Logical argument and which is a factual argument.
Question: Should smoking be banned in public places?
Argument I: Smoking should be banned in public places because it poses a health risk to both smokers and non-smokers. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be harmful to non-smokers, and by banning smoking in public places, we can protect the health of everyone.
Argument II: Smoking should not be banned in public places because it is a personal choice and people should have the freedom to smoke wherever they want. Banning smoking in public places would infringe on personal liberties and restrict individual freedom.
Logical argument: Argument I
Factual argument: Argument II
Question: Should smoking be banned in public places?
Argument I: Smoking should be banned in public places because it poses a health risk to both smokers and non-smokers. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be harmful to non-smokers, and by banning smoking in public places, we can protect the health of everyone.
Argument II: Smoking should not be banned in public places because it is a personal choice and people should have the freedom to smoke wherever they want. Banning smoking in public places would infringe on personal liberties and restrict individual freedom.
Logical argument: Argument I
Factual argument: Argument II
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should young people move away from home when they’ve crossed the age of 18?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It greatly helps them in standing on their own feet and becoming independent.
II. No. Their parents need their support.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should young people move away from home when they’ve crossed the age of 18?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It greatly helps them in standing on their own feet and becoming independent.
II. No. Their parents need their support.
Statement:
Should young people move away from home when they’ve crossed the age of 18?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It greatly helps them in standing on their own feet and becoming independent.
II. No. Their parents need their support.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Nikita das answered |
Understanding the Arguments
In assessing the arguments regarding whether young people should move away from home after turning 18, we need to evaluate their strength based on the implications they present.
Argument I: Pro-Independence
- Independence Development: Argument I suggests that moving out at 18 fosters independence. This is a strong argument as it emphasizes personal growth and the importance of learning to manage one’s own life, finances, and responsibilities.
- Life Skills Acquisition: Living independently helps young individuals acquire essential life skills, which are crucial for their future success. This aligns with the general perception that independence at a young age can lead to more self-reliance in adulthood.
Argument II: Family Support
- Parental Dependence: Argument II states that young people should not move out because their parents need their support. While this argument highlights familial bonds, it is comparatively weak because it overlooks the potential benefits of independence for the young individual.
- Lack of Personal Growth: Relying on parents for support can inhibit the young person's personal development and ability to cope with life's challenges. This argument does not effectively counter the advantages proposed in Argument I.
Conclusion
- Given these evaluations, Argument I is strong due to its focus on personal development and independence.
- Argument II is weak as it fails to provide a compelling reason for young individuals to remain at home, thus making the correct choice option 'A' – only Argument I is strong.
In assessing the arguments regarding whether young people should move away from home after turning 18, we need to evaluate their strength based on the implications they present.
Argument I: Pro-Independence
- Independence Development: Argument I suggests that moving out at 18 fosters independence. This is a strong argument as it emphasizes personal growth and the importance of learning to manage one’s own life, finances, and responsibilities.
- Life Skills Acquisition: Living independently helps young individuals acquire essential life skills, which are crucial for their future success. This aligns with the general perception that independence at a young age can lead to more self-reliance in adulthood.
Argument II: Family Support
- Parental Dependence: Argument II states that young people should not move out because their parents need their support. While this argument highlights familial bonds, it is comparatively weak because it overlooks the potential benefits of independence for the young individual.
- Lack of Personal Growth: Relying on parents for support can inhibit the young person's personal development and ability to cope with life's challenges. This argument does not effectively counter the advantages proposed in Argument I.
Conclusion
- Given these evaluations, Argument I is strong due to its focus on personal development and independence.
- Argument II is weak as it fails to provide a compelling reason for young individuals to remain at home, thus making the correct choice option 'A' – only Argument I is strong.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should cricket be included in the Olympics?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is hugely popular in countries like India and England.
II. No. On the whole, only a handful of countries have prominent cricket teams, whereas Olympics require participation from most of the countries of the World.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should cricket be included in the Olympics?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is hugely popular in countries like India and England.
II. No. On the whole, only a handful of countries have prominent cricket teams, whereas Olympics require participation from most of the countries of the World.
Statement:
Should cricket be included in the Olympics?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is hugely popular in countries like India and England.
II. No. On the whole, only a handful of countries have prominent cricket teams, whereas Olympics require participation from most of the countries of the World.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Dia Mehta answered |
A particular sport being hugely popular in a few countries is no reason for its inclusion in the Olympics which invites participation from almost all the countries. Thus, I is weak. If Cricket is played seriously by only a handful of countries, it’ll not generate interest as generated by other games of the Olympics. Thus, II is holds strong.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence be impounded?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Driving without a licence is in violation of law.
II. No. Sometimes people hesitate to keep the original licence with them at all times due to the fear of misplacing them.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence be impounded?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Driving without a licence is in violation of law.
II. No. Sometimes people hesitate to keep the original licence with them at all times due to the fear of misplacing them.
Statement:
Should the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence be impounded?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Driving without a licence is in violation of law.
II. No. Sometimes people hesitate to keep the original licence with them at all times due to the fear of misplacing them.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Sudha shah answered |
Understanding the Arguments
When evaluating the arguments regarding whether the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence should be impounded, we analyze their strength based on legal principles and practical considerations.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- Legal Violation:
- Driving without a licence is a clear violation of the law.
- Laws are established to ensure public safety and accountability.
- Impounding the vehicle acts as a deterrent against unlawful driving behavior.
- Consequences of Lawbreaking:
- Enforcing penalties, such as impounding vehicles, reinforces the importance of adhering to legal requirements.
- It serves as a warning to others who might consider driving without proper documentation.
Argument II: Weak Argument
- Fear of Misplacement:
- The argument suggests that some individuals may not carry their licence due to fear of losing it.
- However, this does not justify the act of driving without a licence.
- Legal Responsibility:
- Every driver is responsible for ensuring they have their licence while operating a vehicle.
- The potential for misplacing a licence does not negate the obligation to follow legal norms.
Conclusion
In summary, while Argument I is grounded in legal principles and the necessity of upholding the law, Argument II lacks sufficient justification for allowing unlawful behavior. Thus, the correct answer is option 'A', which states that only Argument I is strong.
When evaluating the arguments regarding whether the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence should be impounded, we analyze their strength based on legal principles and practical considerations.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- Legal Violation:
- Driving without a licence is a clear violation of the law.
- Laws are established to ensure public safety and accountability.
- Impounding the vehicle acts as a deterrent against unlawful driving behavior.
- Consequences of Lawbreaking:
- Enforcing penalties, such as impounding vehicles, reinforces the importance of adhering to legal requirements.
- It serves as a warning to others who might consider driving without proper documentation.
Argument II: Weak Argument
- Fear of Misplacement:
- The argument suggests that some individuals may not carry their licence due to fear of losing it.
- However, this does not justify the act of driving without a licence.
- Legal Responsibility:
- Every driver is responsible for ensuring they have their licence while operating a vehicle.
- The potential for misplacing a licence does not negate the obligation to follow legal norms.
Conclusion
In summary, while Argument I is grounded in legal principles and the necessity of upholding the law, Argument II lacks sufficient justification for allowing unlawful behavior. Thus, the correct answer is option 'A', which states that only Argument I is strong.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should the Government introduce Gross Happiness Index on the lines of that introduced in Bhutan?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will greatly help India in becoming a prosperous nation.
II. No. Bhutan has not gone anywhere even after introducing GHI over four decades ago.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should the Government introduce Gross Happiness Index on the lines of that introduced in Bhutan?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will greatly help India in becoming a prosperous nation.
II. No. Bhutan has not gone anywhere even after introducing GHI over four decades ago.
Statement:
Should the Government introduce Gross Happiness Index on the lines of that introduced in Bhutan?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will greatly help India in becoming a prosperous nation.
II. No. Bhutan has not gone anywhere even after introducing GHI over four decades ago.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Nitin prakash answered |
Strong argument and which is a weak argument.
Question: Should the government increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products?
Argument I: Yes, the government should increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will discourage people from consuming these harmful products and will also generate additional revenue for the government.
Argument II: No, the government should not increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will only lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling of these products, which will be difficult to control.
Strong argument: Argument I - Yes, the government should increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will discourage people from consuming these harmful products and will also generate additional revenue for the government.
Weak argument: Argument II - No, the government should not increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will only lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling of these products, which will be difficult to control.
Explanation: Argument I presents a strong argument as it provides valid reasons for increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. It highlights the potential benefits of discouraging consumption and generating additional revenue. On the other hand, Argument II presents a weak argument as it only focuses on the potential negative consequences of higher taxes without considering the potential benefits. Additionally, it assumes that increased taxes will inevitably lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling, without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Question: Should the government increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products?
Argument I: Yes, the government should increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will discourage people from consuming these harmful products and will also generate additional revenue for the government.
Argument II: No, the government should not increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will only lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling of these products, which will be difficult to control.
Strong argument: Argument I - Yes, the government should increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will discourage people from consuming these harmful products and will also generate additional revenue for the government.
Weak argument: Argument II - No, the government should not increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Higher taxes will only lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling of these products, which will be difficult to control.
Explanation: Argument I presents a strong argument as it provides valid reasons for increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. It highlights the potential benefits of discouraging consumption and generating additional revenue. On the other hand, Argument II presents a weak argument as it only focuses on the potential negative consequences of higher taxes without considering the potential benefits. Additionally, it assumes that increased taxes will inevitably lead to an increase in black market sales and smuggling, without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should Railways levy a small modernization surcharge on the passengers?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It was greatly help the railways in generating the required funds for modernizing various facilities provided by them.
II. No. It will greatly imbalance the budget of an average household.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should Railways levy a small modernization surcharge on the passengers?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It was greatly help the railways in generating the required funds for modernizing various facilities provided by them.
II. No. It will greatly imbalance the budget of an average household.
Statement:
Should Railways levy a small modernization surcharge on the passengers?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It was greatly help the railways in generating the required funds for modernizing various facilities provided by them.
II. No. It will greatly imbalance the budget of an average household.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Eshaan Kapoor answered |
I is strong as the surcharge will definitely help the railways in generating funds for the much needed modernization of the railways. On the other hand, such a minor surcharge is highly unlikely to greatly imbalance the budget of an average household. Thus, II is a weak argument.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should there be restrictions on free media?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Sometimes restrictions are needed to control free media.
II. No. It’s the fourth pillar of our democracy.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should there be restrictions on free media?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Sometimes restrictions are needed to control free media.
II. No. It’s the fourth pillar of our democracy.
Statement:
Should there be restrictions on free media?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Sometimes restrictions are needed to control free media.
II. No. It’s the fourth pillar of our democracy.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
|
Eshaan Kapoor answered |
I doesn’t provide any argument, but merely restate the Statement differently. Thus, I is weak. Just because the media is the fourth pillar of democracy doesn’t mean that it should operate without legitimate and rightful restrictions on it. Thus, II is also weak.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should Census be done more often?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Lot of people migrate from one place to another quite frequently and the census results might be obsolete within a year.
II. No. There are huge costs associated with carrying out the census and increasing its frequency might put unnecessary burden on the exchequer.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should Census be done more often?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Lot of people migrate from one place to another quite frequently and the census results might be obsolete within a year.
II. No. There are huge costs associated with carrying out the census and increasing its frequency might put unnecessary burden on the exchequer.
Statement:
Should Census be done more often?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Lot of people migrate from one place to another quite frequently and the census results might be obsolete within a year.
II. No. There are huge costs associated with carrying out the census and increasing its frequency might put unnecessary burden on the exchequer.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
The migration of even a large number of people, except in exceptional situations, is unlikely to make the census, which takes into account the whole population of a particular place, obsolete within a year. Thus, I is weak. II rightly points out the problem with carrying out census more frequently, the problem of costs of such operations. Thus, II holds strong.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should ‘Personal Finance’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will equip the school students with knowledge about investing, savings etc and help them in making informed decisions when they’re earning.
II. No. School students should be kept away from money matters as it can have a negative impact on them.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should ‘Personal Finance’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will equip the school students with knowledge about investing, savings etc and help them in making informed decisions when they’re earning.
II. No. School students should be kept away from money matters as it can have a negative impact on them.
Statement:
Should ‘Personal Finance’ be taught in schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will equip the school students with knowledge about investing, savings etc and help them in making informed decisions when they’re earning.
II. No. School students should be kept away from money matters as it can have a negative impact on them.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
Aryan Khanna answered |
I is self-explanatory and is a strong argument. II does not show how and why money matters will have a negative impact on the school going students. Thus, II is a weak argument.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should corporal punishment be banned in schools?
Arguments:
I. No. Teachers as responsible adults can be trusted with using the punishment only as a last resort, and on a case-to-case basis.
II. Yes. Hitting a student is only an easy way out to create an image of trying to change the student, whereas there are better options available for fundamentally changing the behaviour of the student.- 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
- e)If both I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the following arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument.
Statement:
Should corporal punishment be banned in schools?
Arguments:
I. No. Teachers as responsible adults can be trusted with using the punishment only as a last resort, and on a case-to-case basis.
II. Yes. Hitting a student is only an easy way out to create an image of trying to change the student, whereas there are better options available for fundamentally changing the behaviour of the student.
Statement:
Should corporal punishment be banned in schools?
Arguments:
I. No. Teachers as responsible adults can be trusted with using the punishment only as a last resort, and on a case-to-case basis.
II. Yes. Hitting a student is only an easy way out to create an image of trying to change the student, whereas there are better options available for fundamentally changing the behaviour of the student.
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
e)
If both I and II are strong
|
|
Eshaan Kapoor answered |
If teachers as responsible adults were indeed to be blindly trusted, there was no actual need for such a debate. But experience show that many a times such punishment is inflicted in totally inappropriate and inapt situations. Thus, I is weak. II is self-explanatory and is a strong argument.
Chapter doubts & questions for Arguments - General Intelligence & Reasoning for RRB NTPC/ASM 2025 is part of RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Arguments - General Intelligence & Reasoning for RRB NTPC/ASM in English & Hindi are available as part of RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for RRB NTPC/ASM/CA/TA Exam by signing up for free.
General Intelligence & Reasoning for RRB NTPC/ASM
96 videos|66 docs|123 tests
|
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Study with 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos & Tests
10M+ students study on EduRev
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up
within 7 days!
within 7 days!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup