All Exams >
SSC MTS / SSC GD >
General Intelligence and Reasoning for Competitive Exams >
All Questions
All questions of Arguments for SSC MTS / SSC GD Exam
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?
Arguments:
I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.
II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?
Arguments:
I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.
II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Glance Learning Institute answered |
The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to non-recruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented, will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of it. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should those who receive dowry, despite the law prohibiting it, be punished?
Arguments:
I. Yes, those who violate the law, must be punished.
II. No, dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should those who receive dowry, despite the law prohibiting it, be punished?
Arguments:
I. Yes, those who violate the law, must be punished.
II. No, dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Alfiya Khan answered |
A is the correct option because arguement l is connected to the statement( prohibition and violation of law)
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment?
Arguments:
I. Yes, the prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.
II. No, it is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed crime unknowingly, be met with special treatment?
Arguments:
I. Yes, the prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.
II. No, it is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Shivani das answered |
Strong argument and which is a weak argument.
1. Should smoking be banned in public places?
I. Yes, smoking is harmful to health and non-smokers should not be forced to inhale second-hand smoke.
II. No, smoking is a personal choice and people should be allowed to smoke wherever they want.
Strong argument: I
Weak argument: II
1. Should smoking be banned in public places?
I. Yes, smoking is harmful to health and non-smokers should not be forced to inhale second-hand smoke.
II. No, smoking is a personal choice and people should be allowed to smoke wherever they want.
Strong argument: I
Weak argument: II
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only one type of schools up to matriculation in the entire country?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this exists in some of the western countries.
II. No, schools in rural and urban areas need to be different.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only one type of schools up to matriculation in the entire country?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this exists in some of the western countries.
II. No, schools in rural and urban areas need to be different.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Nishant Upadhyay answered |
The answer is B because
If there is a uniform schooling system in western countries we can not assume that the same would work for our country.
Also rural and urban areas require different approaches due to various socio-economic difference
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 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: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the city development authorities encourage construction of shopping malls which may result into closure of smaller shops?
Arguments:
I. Yes, in shopping malls one can get everything under one roof at a cheaper rate.
II. No, it will not be convenient for many people to go to a shopping mall for purchases of day-to-day requirements.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the city development authorities encourage construction of shopping malls which may result into closure of smaller shops?
Arguments:
I. Yes, in shopping malls one can get everything under one roof at a cheaper rate.
II. No, it will not be convenient for many people to go to a shopping mall for purchases of day-to-day requirements.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Tushar Desai answered |
Strong argument and which is a weak argument.
1. Should smoking be banned in all public places?
I. Strong argument: Smoking is harmful not only to the smoker but also to the people around them. Therefore, it is necessary to ban smoking in all public places to protect the health of non-smokers.
II. Weak argument: Smoking is a personal choice and banning it in public places would infringe on the rights of smokers. People should be allowed to smoke in designated areas.
Answer: Strong argument: I is a strong argument because it is based on the health risks associated with smoking and the need to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. II is a weak argument because it fails to address the health risks associated with smoking and focuses only on the rights of smokers.
2. Should schools require students to wear uniforms?
I. Strong argument: Uniforms promote a sense of unity and equality among students. They also reduce the pressure on students to wear expensive or trendy clothing, which can create a sense of competition and division between students.
II. Weak argument: Uniforms are boring and restrictive. Students should be allowed to express their individuality through their clothing choices.
Answer: Strong argument: I is a strong argument because it highlights the benefits of uniforms in promoting a sense of unity and equality among students, as well as reducing pressure on students to conform to certain fashion trends. II is a weak argument because it focuses only on the potential drawbacks of uniforms without considering their benefits.
1. Should smoking be banned in all public places?
I. Strong argument: Smoking is harmful not only to the smoker but also to the people around them. Therefore, it is necessary to ban smoking in all public places to protect the health of non-smokers.
II. Weak argument: Smoking is a personal choice and banning it in public places would infringe on the rights of smokers. People should be allowed to smoke in designated areas.
Answer: Strong argument: I is a strong argument because it is based on the health risks associated with smoking and the need to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. II is a weak argument because it fails to address the health risks associated with smoking and focuses only on the rights of smokers.
2. Should schools require students to wear uniforms?
I. Strong argument: Uniforms promote a sense of unity and equality among students. They also reduce the pressure on students to wear expensive or trendy clothing, which can create a sense of competition and division between students.
II. Weak argument: Uniforms are boring and restrictive. Students should be allowed to express their individuality through their clothing choices.
Answer: Strong argument: I is a strong argument because it highlights the benefits of uniforms in promoting a sense of unity and equality among students, as well as reducing pressure on students to conform to certain fashion trends. II is a weak argument because it focuses only on the potential drawbacks of uniforms without considering their benefits.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: 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.
- a)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if only argument I is strong
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: 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.
a)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if only argument I is strong
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
The correct option is A.
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.
In a syllogism, what term appears as a predicate in premise 1 and in the conclusion, while the middle term appears as a subject in premise 1 and as a predicate in premise 2?- a) Major term
- b) Minor term
- c) Middle term
- d) Conclusion term
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
In a syllogism, what term appears as a predicate in premise 1 and in the conclusion, while the middle term appears as a subject in premise 1 and as a predicate in premise 2?
a)
Major term
b)
Minor term
c)
Middle term
d)
Conclusion term
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
The major term in a syllogism appears as a predicate in premise 1 and in the conclusion. On the other hand, the middle term appears as a subject in premise 1 and as a predicate in premise 2. Understanding the roles of major, minor, and middle terms in a syllogism is crucial for effectively analyzing and constructing logical arguments.
Which type of argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion based on the truth of the premises?- a) Inductive Argument
- b) Abductive Argument
- c) Deductive Argument
- d) Hypothetical Argument
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Which type of argument guarantees the truth of the conclusion based on the truth of the premises?
a)
Inductive Argument
b)
Abductive Argument
c)
Deductive Argument
d)
Hypothetical Argument
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
In a deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. This means that if the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows and must also be true. Deductive reasoning is characterized by this strong connection between premises and conclusions, ensuring the validity of the argument.
What kind of relationship in the square of opposition exists between propositions that vary in both quality and quantity, ensuring that if one is true, the other must be false?
- a)Contradictory
- b)Subalterns
- c)Contraries
- d)Sub-Contrary
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
What kind of relationship in the square of opposition exists between propositions that vary in both quality and quantity, ensuring that if one is true, the other must be false?
a)
Contradictory
b)
Subalterns
c)
Contraries
d)
Sub-Contrary
|
|
Divit Mehra answered |
Understanding the Square of Opposition
The square of opposition is a diagram representing the relationships between different types of categorical propositions. It consists of four corners representing four types of propositions based on quality (affirmative or negative) and quantity (universal or particular).
Contradictory Propositions
- Contradictory propositions are those that cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false.
- They are positioned diagonally in the square of opposition. For example:
- Universal affirmative (All S are P) and particular negative (Some S are not P) are contradictory.
- If one is true, the other must be false.
Variations in Quality and Quantity
- The propositions that vary in both quality (affirmative vs. negative) and quantity (universal vs. particular) lead to contradictions.
- For instance:
- If "All cats are mammals" (universal affirmative) is true, then "Some cats are not mammals" (particular negative) must be false.
Why Option A is Correct
- The correct answer is option 'A' because contradictory relationships highlight the exclusive nature of truth values between propositions.
- This ensures that the truth of one directly negates the truth of the other, fulfilling the criteria of varying in both quality and quantity.
Conclusion
In summary, contradictory propositions in the square of opposition represent fundamental logical relationships, where the truth of one proposition guarantees the falsehood of another. Understanding this relationship is crucial for studying logical reasoning and argumentation in the UGC NET context.
The square of opposition is a diagram representing the relationships between different types of categorical propositions. It consists of four corners representing four types of propositions based on quality (affirmative or negative) and quantity (universal or particular).
Contradictory Propositions
- Contradictory propositions are those that cannot both be true at the same time, nor can they both be false.
- They are positioned diagonally in the square of opposition. For example:
- Universal affirmative (All S are P) and particular negative (Some S are not P) are contradictory.
- If one is true, the other must be false.
Variations in Quality and Quantity
- The propositions that vary in both quality (affirmative vs. negative) and quantity (universal vs. particular) lead to contradictions.
- For instance:
- If "All cats are mammals" (universal affirmative) is true, then "Some cats are not mammals" (particular negative) must be false.
Why Option A is Correct
- The correct answer is option 'A' because contradictory relationships highlight the exclusive nature of truth values between propositions.
- This ensures that the truth of one directly negates the truth of the other, fulfilling the criteria of varying in both quality and quantity.
Conclusion
In summary, contradictory propositions in the square of opposition represent fundamental logical relationships, where the truth of one proposition guarantees the falsehood of another. Understanding this relationship is crucial for studying logical reasoning and argumentation in the UGC NET context.
What defines the structure of a logical argument?- a) A set of conclusions drawn from premises
- b) A set of premises leading to a conclusion
- c) A set of hypotheses supporting an outcome
- d) A set of contradictory statements
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
What defines the structure of a logical argument?
a)
A set of conclusions drawn from premises
b)
A set of premises leading to a conclusion
c)
A set of hypotheses supporting an outcome
d)
A set of contradictory statements
|
Charu Sharma answered |
Defining Logical Argument Structure
A logical argument is fundamentally composed of premises and conclusions. The correct answer, option 'B', emphasizes this relationship.
Key Components of a Logical Argument:
- Premises: These are statements or propositions that provide the foundation for the argument. They are assumed to be true and serve as the starting point for reasoning.
- Conclusion: This is the statement that follows logically from the premises. It is what the argument seeks to establish or prove based on the given premises.
How Premises Lead to a Conclusion:
- A logical argument is structured such that the premises support the conclusion. If the premises are accepted as true, the conclusion should logically follow.
- The strength of an argument hinges on the validity of the connection between its premises and conclusion. If the premises do not adequately support the conclusion, the argument may be considered weak or fallacious.
Importance of Option 'B':
- This option highlights the sequential flow of reasoning: starting with premises and arriving at a conclusion. It encapsulates the essence of logical reasoning, which is critical for sound argumentation.
- Other options, such as 'A', 'C', and 'D', do not accurately depict the structure of a logical argument. They either misrepresent the relationship between premises and conclusions or introduce irrelevant concepts.
In summary, understanding that a logical argument is defined by a set of premises leading to a conclusion is essential for effective reasoning and critical thinking.
A logical argument is fundamentally composed of premises and conclusions. The correct answer, option 'B', emphasizes this relationship.
Key Components of a Logical Argument:
- Premises: These are statements or propositions that provide the foundation for the argument. They are assumed to be true and serve as the starting point for reasoning.
- Conclusion: This is the statement that follows logically from the premises. It is what the argument seeks to establish or prove based on the given premises.
How Premises Lead to a Conclusion:
- A logical argument is structured such that the premises support the conclusion. If the premises are accepted as true, the conclusion should logically follow.
- The strength of an argument hinges on the validity of the connection between its premises and conclusion. If the premises do not adequately support the conclusion, the argument may be considered weak or fallacious.
Importance of Option 'B':
- This option highlights the sequential flow of reasoning: starting with premises and arriving at a conclusion. It encapsulates the essence of logical reasoning, which is critical for sound argumentation.
- Other options, such as 'A', 'C', and 'D', do not accurately depict the structure of a logical argument. They either misrepresent the relationship between premises and conclusions or introduce irrelevant concepts.
In summary, understanding that a logical argument is defined by a set of premises leading to a conclusion is essential for effective reasoning and critical thinking.
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: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the teenagers be denied access to the Internet?
Arguments:
I. Yes, most of the children, particularly the teenagers, are found indulging in accessing pornographic contents.
II. No, denying access to the Internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information, instead the access may be controlled.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the teenagers be denied access to the Internet?
Arguments:
I. Yes, most of the children, particularly the teenagers, are found indulging in accessing pornographic contents.
II. No, denying access to the Internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information, instead the access may be controlled.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
EduRev CLAT answered |
I is strong because an obsession with such contents creates a bad impact on their impressionable minds.
II is strong because in today's age one can't afford to lose access to information
Hence, option e is the correct answer.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
II. No, nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if only argument II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
II. No, nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if only argument II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Alok Malik answered |
Strong argument and which is a weak argument.
1. Should smoking be banned in all public places?
I. Strong argument: Smoking is a major cause of health problems, and non-smokers should not be subjected to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
II. Weak argument: Banning smoking in public places infringes on the rights of smokers to enjoy their habit.
Strong argument: Argument I presents a valid and compelling reason for banning smoking in public places, as it focuses on the health risks associated with second-hand smoke. Argument II, on the other hand, is a weak argument as it is based on the assumption that smokers have a right to smoke in public places, which is not a universally accepted premise.
1. Should smoking be banned in all public places?
I. Strong argument: Smoking is a major cause of health problems, and non-smokers should not be subjected to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
II. Weak argument: Banning smoking in public places infringes on the rights of smokers to enjoy their habit.
Strong argument: Argument I presents a valid and compelling reason for banning smoking in public places, as it focuses on the health risks associated with second-hand smoke. Argument II, on the other hand, is a weak argument as it is based on the assumption that smokers have a right to smoke in public places, which is not a universally accepted premise.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only two political parties in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.
II. No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only two political parties in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.
II. No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Kirti choudhary answered |
Understanding the Arguments
When evaluating the arguments regarding whether there should be only two political parties in India, it's essential to analyze the strength of each argument presented.
Argument I: Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.
- This argument suggests that the presence of two political parties is a standard in developed nations.
- However, it fails to consider the unique socio-political context of India.
- Just because a system works in some countries does not mean it will work effectively in another.
- Therefore, this argument is weak as it lacks a tailored rationale for India’s situation.
Argument II: No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.
- This argument posits that the Indian electorate may not have the maturity required to choose between only two options effectively.
- While it raises a crucial point regarding the political awareness and engagement of the electorate, it also lacks constructive evidence.
- It does not provide clarity on what "maturity" means or how it directly impacts the choice between two parties.
- Thus, it is also a weak argument.
Conclusion: Analysis of Strength
- Both arguments presented do not adequately support their claims.
- Argument I does not consider India's unique political landscape, and Argument II does not substantiate its assertion about the electorate's maturity.
- Hence, the correct answer is option **D**: neither argument I nor II is strong.
This evaluation illustrates that both arguments lack the necessary depth and relevance to be considered strong in the context of the question posed.
When evaluating the arguments regarding whether there should be only two political parties in India, it's essential to analyze the strength of each argument presented.
Argument I: Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.
- This argument suggests that the presence of two political parties is a standard in developed nations.
- However, it fails to consider the unique socio-political context of India.
- Just because a system works in some countries does not mean it will work effectively in another.
- Therefore, this argument is weak as it lacks a tailored rationale for India’s situation.
Argument II: No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.
- This argument posits that the Indian electorate may not have the maturity required to choose between only two options effectively.
- While it raises a crucial point regarding the political awareness and engagement of the electorate, it also lacks constructive evidence.
- It does not provide clarity on what "maturity" means or how it directly impacts the choice between two parties.
- Thus, it is also a weak argument.
Conclusion: Analysis of Strength
- Both arguments presented do not adequately support their claims.
- Argument I does not consider India's unique political landscape, and Argument II does not substantiate its assertion about the electorate's maturity.
- Hence, the correct answer is option **D**: neither argument I nor II is strong.
This evaluation illustrates that both arguments lack the necessary depth and relevance to be considered strong in the context of the question posed.
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 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: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should all correspondence courses at graduate level be stopped?
Arguments:
I. No, correspondence courses help needy students to pursue studies and earn at the same time.
II. Yes, quality education is not possible without teachers and classrooms.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should all correspondence courses at graduate level be stopped?
Arguments:
I. No, correspondence courses help needy students to pursue studies and earn at the same time.
II. Yes, quality education is not possible without teachers and classrooms.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Rajendra Advocate answered |
Option E is correct coz according to the statement given both the arguments imply to it.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be a total ban on use of plastic bags?
Arguments:
I. No, instead the thickness of plastic bags, which can be used without much damage to the environment, should be specified.
II. Yes, use of plastic bags causes various problems like water pollution and water-logging and hence it is necessary to ban it.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be a total ban on use of plastic bags?
Arguments:
I. No, instead the thickness of plastic bags, which can be used without much damage to the environment, should be specified.
II. Yes, use of plastic bags causes various problems like water pollution and water-logging and hence it is necessary to ban it.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Trisha menon answered |
Argument Analysis:
Argument I:
- This argument suggests that instead of a total ban on plastic bags, the focus should be on specifying the thickness of plastic bags that can be used without causing significant harm to the environment.
- This argument acknowledges the practical use of plastic bags but emphasizes the need for regulation to minimize environmental damage.
Argument II:
- This argument advocates for a total ban on plastic bags due to the various problems they cause, such as water pollution and water-logging.
- It highlights the negative impact of plastic bags on the environment and argues for a drastic measure to address these issues.
Evaluation:
- Both arguments present valid points regarding the use of plastic bags and its impact on the environment.
- Argument I focuses on regulation and control, suggesting a nuanced approach to address the issue.
- Argument II takes a more drastic stance, calling for a complete ban to tackle the environmental problems caused by plastic bags.
- Considering the severity of environmental issues associated with plastic bags, a combination of regulation and prohibition might be the most effective solution.
Therefore, both arguments I and II are strong as they offer different perspectives on how to address the problem of plastic bag usage, with each argument providing valid reasoning for its position.
Argument I:
- This argument suggests that instead of a total ban on plastic bags, the focus should be on specifying the thickness of plastic bags that can be used without causing significant harm to the environment.
- This argument acknowledges the practical use of plastic bags but emphasizes the need for regulation to minimize environmental damage.
Argument II:
- This argument advocates for a total ban on plastic bags due to the various problems they cause, such as water pollution and water-logging.
- It highlights the negative impact of plastic bags on the environment and argues for a drastic measure to address these issues.
Evaluation:
- Both arguments present valid points regarding the use of plastic bags and its impact on the environment.
- Argument I focuses on regulation and control, suggesting a nuanced approach to address the issue.
- Argument II takes a more drastic stance, calling for a complete ban to tackle the environmental problems caused by plastic bags.
- Considering the severity of environmental issues associated with plastic bags, a combination of regulation and prohibition might be the most effective solution.
Therefore, both arguments I and II are strong as they offer different perspectives on how to address the problem of plastic bag usage, with each argument providing valid reasoning for its position.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be uniforms for students in the colleges in India as in the schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.
II. No, college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to college.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong
- c)if either argument I or II is strong
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be uniforms for students in the colleges in India as in the schools?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.
II. No, college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to college.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong
c)
if either argument I or II is strong
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Bibek Menon answered |
The correct option is E
If both I and II are strong
Argument I is strong as improved ambience is desirable. Argument II is strong because segmentation of adults is undesirable
If both I and II are strong
Argument I is strong as improved ambience is desirable. Argument II is strong because segmentation of adults is undesirable
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the sale of tobacco products be restricted to only a few outlets in each city/town?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce consumption of tobacco products.
II. No, those who want to purchase tobacco products should get them at convenient locations.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the sale of tobacco products be restricted to only a few outlets in each city/town?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce consumption of tobacco products.
II. No, those who want to purchase tobacco products should get them at convenient locations.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Naman Agrawal answered |
Generally, limiting the sale of something is undertaken to reduce it's consumption in the market and that what it is done with tobbaco. So, argument (a) is strong, while second one is irrelevant to the topic.
What type of categorical proposition denies the overlap between the subject class and the predicate class, considering the entire class?- a) Particular Affirmative
- b) Universal Negative
- c) Particular Negative
- d) Contrary
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
What type of categorical proposition denies the overlap between the subject class and the predicate class, considering the entire class?
a)
Particular Affirmative
b)
Universal Negative
c)
Particular Negative
d)
Contrary
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
A Universal Negative proposition, denoted by E, denies the overlap between the subject class and the predicate class, considering the entire class. An example of a Universal Negative proposition is "No cats are dogs". This type of proposition asserts that no member of the subject class is part of the predicate class. It is crucial to understand the distinctions between the different types of categorical propositions to grasp the structure of arguments effectively.
In immediate inference through implication, what is maintained when drawing conclusions?- a) The subject changes.
- b) The predicate changes.
- c) The subject and predicate interchange.
- d) The subject remains the subject and the predicate remains the predicate.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
In immediate inference through implication, what is maintained when drawing conclusions?
a)
The subject changes.
b)
The predicate changes.
c)
The subject and predicate interchange.
d)
The subject remains the subject and the predicate remains the predicate.
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
In immediate inference through implication, the subject remains the subject and the predicate remains the predicate when drawing conclusions. This method involves maintaining the core subjects and predicates to derive logical inferences.
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 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.
Which type of categorical proposition affirms the overlap of classes for the entire subject class?- a) Universal Affirmative
- b) Universal Negative
- c) Particular Affirmative
- d) Particular Negative
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Which type of categorical proposition affirms the overlap of classes for the entire subject class?
a)
Universal Affirmative
b)
Universal Negative
c)
Particular Affirmative
d)
Particular Negative
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
A Universal Affirmative categorical proposition affirms the overlap of classes for the entire subject class. This type of proposition asserts that every element of the subject class is also a member of the predicate class, indicating a universal relationship between the two categories as described in the statement "All S is P."
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: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only a uniform rate of income tax irrespective of the level of income?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce the work of the officials of the income tax department.
II. No, this will reduce Govt. tax collection to a large extent.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should there be only a uniform rate of income tax irrespective of the level of income?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce the work of the officials of the income tax department.
II. No, this will reduce Govt. tax collection to a large extent.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Urvashi nayar answered |
The correct option is B.
Argument I is weak because the reduction of workload of IT officials is not too desirable motive. Argument II is strong as reduced tax collection ill have bad impact on state activities.
Argument I is weak because the reduction of workload of IT officials is not too desirable motive. Argument II is strong as reduced tax collection ill have bad impact on state activities.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
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.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
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.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
Knowledge Hub answered |
Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. So, argument I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So, argument II also holds.
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.
What characterizes an argument as sound?- a) It must be valid and have true premises.
- b) It must be popularly accepted.
- c) It must be emotionally compelling.
- d) It must be complex and nuanced.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
What characterizes an argument as sound?
a)
It must be valid and have true premises.
b)
It must be popularly accepted.
c)
It must be emotionally compelling.
d)
It must be complex and nuanced.
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
An argument is considered sound when it is not only valid in structure but also based on true premises. This means that the argument's logical form is correct, and the information it starts with is accurate, making the conclusion necessarily true if the premises are true.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should all the universities in the country switch over to grade system rather than awarding marks?
Arguments:
I. Yes, with this the students falling in a particular range of marks can be treated on par.
II. No, it will be difficult to rank the students when required to be short-listed.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should all the universities in the country switch over to grade system rather than awarding marks?
Arguments:
I. Yes, with this the students falling in a particular range of marks can be treated on par.
II. No, it will be difficult to rank the students when required to be short-listed.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Devika das answered |
The correct option is E.
Argument I is strong because it states genuine reason. Argument II is also strong because it is true.
Argument I is strong because it states genuine reason. Argument II is also strong because it is true.
What is the purpose of understanding logical fallacies in constructing arguments?- a) To make arguments more complex.
- b) To undermine the credibility of an argument.
- c) To confuse the audience.
- d) To make the argument more appealing.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
What is the purpose of understanding logical fallacies in constructing arguments?
a)
To make arguments more complex.
b)
To undermine the credibility of an argument.
c)
To confuse the audience.
d)
To make the argument more appealing.
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
Understanding logical fallacies is crucial in constructing arguments to avoid undermining the credibility of the argument. Fallacies can weaken the logical foundation of an argument, making it less persuasive and reliable.
What term refers to a verb that links the subject and predicate in a categorical proposition?- a) Quantifier
- b) Copula
- c) Predicate Term
- d) Subject Term
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
What term refers to a verb that links the subject and predicate in a categorical proposition?
a)
Quantifier
b)
Copula
c)
Predicate Term
d)
Subject Term
|
|
Academia Elite answered |
The copula in a categorical proposition is the verb that links the subject and predicate terms together. It serves as the connecting element between the subject (the first class or category) and the predicate (the second class or category) in a categorical statement, helping to establish the relationship between them.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the sale of all the toys made in China be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business.
II. No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the sale of all the toys made in China be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business.
II. No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
Kabeer ghosh answered |
The correct option is E.
Both the arguments are correct in their aspects.
As an argument I say, Yes these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business, this statement is absolutely correct.
Argument II says ‘No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected’, this statement is also correct.
Both the arguments are correct in their aspects.
As an argument I say, Yes these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business, this statement is absolutely correct.
Argument II says ‘No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected’, this statement is also correct.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should Indian scientists working abroad be called back to India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.
II. No, we have enough talent, let them stay where they want.
- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if both arguments I and II are strong
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should Indian scientists working abroad be called back to India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, they must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.
II. No, we have enough talent, let them stay where they want.
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong
|
|
EduRev CLAT answered |
Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.Statement: Should gambling be made legal in India?Arguments:I. Yes, Government can earn huge amount of money by imposing tax on the amount involved in gambling as people otherwise gamble illegally.II. No, some individuals might misuse their earnings on gambling if it’s legalized, which could cause issues for them and their families.- a)if both arguments I and II are strong
- b)if only argument II is strong.
- c)if either argument I or II is strong.
- d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- e)if only argument I is strong
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should gambling be made legal in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, Government can earn huge amount of money by imposing tax on the amount involved in gambling as people otherwise gamble illegally.
II. No, some individuals might misuse their earnings on gambling if it’s legalized, which could cause issues for them and their families.
a)
if both arguments I and II are strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if only argument I is strong
|
|
EduRev CLAT answered |
Argument I: Yes, the Government can earn a huge amount of money by imposing tax on the amount involved in gambling as people otherwise gamble illegally.
- Analysis: This argument highlights the potential financial benefit to the government through taxation on legal gambling. It suggests that legalization could help control the gambling industry, prevent illegal activities, and provide a source of revenue. This is a strong argument because it directly addresses a potential advantage of legalization that could benefit public funds and improve regulation.
Argument II: No, some individuals might misuse their earnings on gambling if it’s legalized, which could cause issues for them and their families.
- Analysis: This argument raises a valid concern about the potential negative impact of gambling on individuals and families, including financial strain and addiction. However, it does not directly address the overall feasibility or regulation of gambling but instead highlights a possible misuse of legalization. While relevant, this argument is relatively weaker because it focuses on individual behavior rather than the larger impact on society or the feasibility of controlled legalization.
Conclusion: Argument I is strong, as it addresses a significant economic benefit and regulatory advantage. Argument II, while raising a valid concern, is less directly related to the question’s broader implications.
Answer: E (if only argument I is strong).
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.Statement: Should the knowledge of Hindi language be made compulsory for all the employees of public sector organisations?Arguments:I. Yes, it is necessary for dealing with people from the educationally backward strata of the society.II. No, it is not necessary for every employee to have the knowledge of Hindi language- a)if only argument I is strong
- b)if either argument I or II is strong.
- c)if neither argument I nor II is strong.
- d)if both arguments I and II are strong
- e)if only argument II is strong.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.
Statement: Should the knowledge of Hindi language be made compulsory for all the employees of public sector organisations?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is necessary for dealing with people from the educationally backward strata of the society.
II. No, it is not necessary for every employee to have the knowledge of Hindi language
a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if either argument I or II is strong.
c)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
d)
if both arguments I and II are strong
e)
if only argument II is strong.
|
|
EduRev CLAT answered |
Argument I: Yes, it is necessary for dealing with people from the educationally backward strata of society.
- Analysis: This argument suggests that knowledge of Hindi would help employees communicate with individuals from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it does not consider whether these interactions could be managed through other means, such as hiring specific staff fluent in Hindi or providing translators. Additionally, it doesn’t address whether making Hindi compulsory for all employees is the most effective or necessary solution. Thus, this argument is relatively weak as it doesn’t fully support the need for compulsory Hindi knowledge for all employees.
Argument II: No, it is not necessary for every employee to have the knowledge of the Hindi language.
- Analysis: This argument points out that it may not be essential for all public sector employees to know Hindi, likely because some employees may not interact directly with the public or may serve in regions where other languages are more prevalent. This is a strong argument as it questions the practicality of a blanket requirement and acknowledges the diversity of roles and linguistic needs in public sector organizations.
Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it provides a reasonable perspective on the impracticality of mandating Hindi language knowledge for all employees.
Answer: E (if only argument II is strong).
Chapter doubts & questions for Arguments - General Intelligence and Reasoning for Competitive Exams 2025 is part of SSC MTS / SSC GD exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the SSC MTS / SSC GD exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for SSC MTS / SSC GD 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Arguments - General Intelligence and Reasoning for Competitive Exams in English & Hindi are available as part of SSC MTS / SSC GD exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for SSC MTS / SSC GD Exam by signing up for free.
General Intelligence and Reasoning for Competitive Exams
110 videos|104 docs|89 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up
within 7 days!
within 7 days!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup