All Exams  >   Judiciary Exams  >   Logical Reasoning for Judiciary Exam  >   All Questions

All questions of Strong & Weak Arguments for Judiciary Exams Exam

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.
Q. 
Statement: Should HIV + kids be facilitated with ‘in-house school’ instead of allowing them to continue in ‘outside school?
Arguments:
I. Yes, this preventive step will ease the tension of majority of parents who send their wards to ‘outside schools’.
II. No, ‘in-house school’ facility will isolate the children from the outside world; the move will harm the basic purpose of education and do the children more harm than good.
a)If only argument I is “strong”.
b)If only argument II is “strong”.
c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.
d)If both I and II are “strong”.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Anaya Patel answered
The correct answer is B as statement 2nd is more strong or more or which is directly relevant to the given statement as compare to first one because it relates only general reason.

Directions ): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.
Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer
If only argument I is “strong”.
If only argument II is “strong”.
If neither I nor II is “strong”.
If both I and II are “strong”.
Q. Should all students passing out from the government run colleges and desirous of settling aboard be asked to pay back the cost of their education to the government? 
Arguments:
I.    Yes, such students who study on the resources of the exchequer should be discouraged to leave the country.
II. No, every citizen has the right to select their place of further study or work and therefore such a condition is unjustified.
  • a)
    1
  • b)
    2
  • c)
    3
  • d)
    4
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Kiran Reddy answered
The first statement is strong enough as private colleges are known for their quality. To maintain this, they need to charge higher fees. The second statement is not strong enough as the fees of private colleges, if brought down, may bring down the quality. Meritorious students can always be given scholarships, etc.

Directions: each of the following questions consist of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. Choose the best answer from the given options.
Statement: Should a lot of money be spent on promoting movies?
Arguments:
A. Yes. It is an essential component of attracting more audience.
B. No. it only leads to wastage of resources.
  • a)
    Only A
  • b)
    Only B
  • c)
    Either A or B
  • d)
    Neither A or B
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Jyoti patil answered
The benefit of producing a movie lies in the fact that the film earns money along with creative appreciation. These two things are only possible if the viewers watch these movies. The best means to attract viewers is through promotions where the movies are officially introduced allowing the viewers to analyze whether a particular movie is worth meeting their expectations. Hence, argument A strongly justifies the given statement. Argument B which talks about the wastage of money through promotions is quite weak because promotions are investments so that the gain at the end can be better. It is no way can it be considered as ‘only’ wastage of money. Hence, 1 is the correct answer.

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.
Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer
If only argument I is “strong”.
If only argument II is “strong”.
If neither I nor II is “strong”.
If both I and II are “strong”.
Q Statement: Should foreign surgeons be allowed to conduct surgeries in India?
Arguments:
I. No; Indian surgeons are not permitted to conduct surgeries abroad.
II. No; foreign surgeons work here in an unfamiliar environment with new assistants and often with less than optimal instruments than they are used to.
  • a)
    1
  • b)
    3
  • c)
    2
  • d)
    4
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Argument 1 - A country can't follow any other country decision Blindly. May be that country have enough surgeons. So this argument is weak. Argument 2 - Foreign surgeons use Many high tech surgical instruments. Indian surgeons can work without those instruments easily. Another problem is communication during surgery. So this argument 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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument. 
Q.
Should all students passing out from the government run colleges and desirous of settling aboard be asked to pay back the cost of their education to the government? 
Arguments:
I. Yes, such students who study on the resources of the exchequer should be discouraged to leave the country.
II. No, every citizen has the right to select their place of further study or work and therefore such a condition is unjustified.
  • a)
    If both I and II are “strong”.
  • b)
    If only argument II is “strong”.
  • c)
    If neither I nor II is “strong”
  • d)
    If only argument I is “strong”. 
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Understanding the Arguments
In the question of whether students from government-run colleges should repay their education costs upon settling abroad, we analyze two arguments presented.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- The first argument states that students benefiting from government-funded education should be discouraged from leaving the country.
- This perspective emphasizes the importance of retaining skilled individuals within the nation to contribute to its growth and development.
- It is a strong argument because it addresses the broader implications of public investment in education and the expectations tied to such funding.
Argument II: Weak Argument
- The second argument posits that every citizen has the right to choose where to work or study, deeming the repayment condition unjustified.
- While this argument touches on individual rights, it lacks a direct relation to the core issue of public funding and societal responsibility.
- It does not adequately consider the implications of public expenditure and the reciprocal responsibilities that come with it.
Conclusion
- In summary, Argument I is deemed strong as it directly relates to the larger societal impact of government-funded education, while Argument II is weak because it focuses on individual rights without addressing the communal aspect of public investment.
- Therefore, the correct choice is option D, identifying only Argument I as a strong argument.

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.
Q.
Statement: Should conditional access system (CAS) for TVs be put in place in India?
Arguments:
I.  Yes, this will enable television viewers of India the freedom to access the channel of their choice and pay for only the ones selected.
II. No, the system negates the basic requirements such as the rights and obligations of broadcasters, cable operators and consumers. Besides, instead of offering a real choice to consumers at reasonable costs, the system promotes commercial interests of broad-casters or set-top manufacturers.
  • a)
    If only argument I is “strong”.
  • b)
    If only argument II is “strong”.
  • c)
    If neither I nor II is “strong”.
  • d)
    If both I and II are “strong”.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Richa Fulara answered
Yes. correct option is D. this is because both the statements are the direct results of the CAS system and both carry strong opinions .

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?

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.

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.
Q.
Statement:
Should doctors and engineers be banned from civil services examination?
Arguments:
I.  No, banning engineers and medicos from joining civil services means denying the best talent in the land to work for the welfare of the society.
II. Yes, taxpayers money is being used to finance the studies of doctors and engineers, particularly in government institutes. The money spent on them goes down the drain once a medico or engineer shifts tracks to civil services.   
  • a)
    If both I and II are “strong”.       
  • b)
    If only argument II is “strong”.
  • c)
    If neither I nor II is “strong”.
  • d)
    If only argument I is “strong”.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Statement I is strong because if we deny doctors and engineers we are actually denying professional talented people from working for the society as they wishStatement II is not strong because taxpayer's money is not wasted if someone goes to work in civil service, the person is still working for the people. Moreover taxpayer's money is not used for private college students too

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.
Q. 
Statement: Should foreign collaborations in higher education be allowed without proper scrutiny?
Arguments:
I.  No, no organisation should be allowed without proper scrutiny because sometimes these collaborations turn out to be frauds. There are cases where the organisation promises job security and other facilities for students but which, in reality, are nothing but a shame.
II. No, our country is already facing the problem of ‘brain drain’. Many foreign universities and institutes lure talented and hardworking students to join their courses which subsequently lead to ‘brain drain’ as they promise lucrative jobs in foreign countries.
  • a)
    If only argument I is “strong”.
  • b)
    If only argument II is “strong”.
  • c)
    If neither I nor II is “strong”.
  • d)
    If both I and II are “strong”.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Sakshi Jhanji answered
D

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.

Q. Statements:
Should markets be opened till late night in all metropolitan cities of India?
Arguments:
I. Yes; the move will make the Indian metropolitan cities at par with other well-developed cities in the world.
II. No; high percentage of personal and national income gets spent on immediate consumption needs; little is left for investment capital.
  • a)
    If only argument I is “strong”.
  • b)
    If only argument II is “strong”.
  • c)
    If neither I nor II is “strong”.
  • d)
    If both I and II are “strong”.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Gargi Shukla answered
Neither one or two is strong because the statment "Should markets be opened till late night in all metropolitan cities of India?" is related to the need the common public who are supposed to buy the product. It depends whether the majority of people work till late night or not and need market as source to provide products all the time because it is not the scenario in all the metropolitan cities.

Chapter doubts & questions for Strong & Weak Arguments - Logical Reasoning for Judiciary Exam 2025 is part of Judiciary Exams exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the Judiciary Exams exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for Judiciary Exams 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.

Chapter doubts & questions of Strong & Weak Arguments - Logical Reasoning for Judiciary Exam in English & Hindi are available as part of Judiciary Exams exam. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Judiciary Exams Exam by signing up for free.

Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!

Study with 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos & Tests
10M+ students study on EduRev