Test: Arguments - CLAT MCQ

Argument I: Yes, these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the impact of cheap Chinese toys on local manufacturers, suggesting that their low cost could harm Indian businesses by making it difficult for them to compete. This is a strong argument as it addresses a significant economic concern regarding the sustainability of local industry, which is directly relevant to the question.

Argument II: No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that the quality of Indian toys will protect them from competition with Chinese toys, implying that there is no need for a ban. It counters the idea that local businesses would suffer due to competition from cheaper imports, making it relevant to the question. This is a strong argument as it addresses the quality and competitive position of Indian products.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address different but relevant aspects of the issue—one concerning economic impact on local manufacturers, and the other on product quality and competition.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, this will substantially reduce the work of the officials of the income tax department.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that a uniform tax rate would simplify the work of tax officials. While reducing administrative complexity is beneficial, this argument does not address the main considerations of income tax policy, such as fairness, equity, or the impact on government revenue. Thus, it is a weak argument, as it focuses on a minor operational aspect rather than the broader implications.

Argument II: No, this will reduce Govt. tax collection to a large extent.

• Analysis: This argument highlights a significant issue: a uniform tax rate could lead to reduced government revenue, especially if high-income earners are taxed at the same rate as low-income earners. This could impact public services and government funding. This is a strong argument because it addresses a critical consequence of the policy change, directly related to the financial viability of government operations.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it considers the substantial impact of a uniform tax rate on government revenue.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.

• Analysis: This argument points out that some developed countries have a two-party system, but it doesn’t provide a strong rationale for why India should adopt this model. The political structure of a country depends on various factors, including cultural, social, and historical contexts, which are different in India. Therefore, this argument is weak, as it doesn’t address whether or why a two-party system would be suitable or beneficial for India specifically.

Argument II: No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that the Indian electorate may not be ready for a two-party system, but it doesn’t explain why this is the case or why a multi-party system is better suited to India’s diverse electorate. The argument is weak because it lacks a clear and substantial reasoning to support the idea of retaining multiple parties.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak, as they do not directly address the suitability of a two-party system for India with solid reasoning.

Answer: D (if neither argument I nor II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, this will substantially reduce consumption of tobacco products.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that limiting the number of outlets selling tobacco could make it less accessible, potentially decreasing consumption. This is directly related to the public health goal of reducing tobacco use and is a strong argument, as it addresses a significant potential benefit of restricting sales.

Argument II: No, those who want to purchase tobacco products should get them at convenient locations.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes convenience for consumers, but it does not address the broader issue of health or social benefits. Convenience, while relevant, is a comparatively minor consideration when weighed against the potential health benefits of reduced tobacco consumption. This makes it a weaker argument.

Conclusion: Only Argument I is strong, as it directly relates to the significant public health objective of reducing tobacco consumption.

Answer: A (if only argument I is strong).

Argument I: Yes, the prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that prestigious individuals may not intentionally commit crimes, but it does not provide a justification for why they should receive special treatment if they do so unknowingly. Unintentional crime is not exclusive to prestigious people, and the argument does not address why their status should exempt them from standard legal treatment. This makes the argument weak, as it lacks direct relevance to the principle of equal legal accountability.

Argument II: No, it is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.

• Analysis: This argument supports the principle of equality before the law, emphasizing that everyone, regardless of their status, should be treated the same under legal standards. This is a strong argument, as it is directly related to the foundational legal principle that upholds fairness and justice, which is critical in this context.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it upholds the important legal principle of equality before the law.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, those who violate the law must be punished.

• Analysis: This argument directly supports the enforcement of the law, asserting that anyone who violates legal prohibitions should face consequences. This is a strong argument because it reinforces the principle of upholding the law and the need for accountability, which is directly related to the question of punishing dowry recipients.

Argument II: No, dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that dowry is deeply ingrained in society but does not provide a reason for why those who accept dowry should not be punished. Tradition alone does not justify breaking the law, especially in cases where the law exists to prevent harm and promote social justice. Therefore, this is a weak argument, as it does not directly address the question of legal enforcement.

Conclusion: Only Argument I is strong, as it provides a clear rationale based on the importance of enforcing the law.

Answer: A (if only argument I is strong).

Argument I: Yes, this exists in some of the western countries.

• Analysis: This argument merely points out that a single type of school system exists in some Western countries, but it does not provide a reason why such a system would be beneficial or suitable for India. The argument lacks direct relevance to the specific needs and conditions of Indian society. Therefore, this is a weak argument.

Argument II: No, schools in rural and urban areas need to be different.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the practical consideration that rural and urban areas have different educational needs, resources, and challenges. For example, rural areas may require different approaches to infrastructure, curriculum, and accessibility compared to urban areas. This makes the argument strong, as it directly addresses an important aspect of why a one-size-fits-all school system may not be effective across diverse regions.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it considers the specific needs of different areas within the country.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

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).

Argument I: Yes, most of the children, particularly the teenagers, are found indulging in accessing pornographic contents.

• Analysis: This argument points out a concern that some teenagers may misuse Internet access to view inappropriate content. While this is a relevant concern, it focuses on only one aspect of Internet usage without considering broader educational or social impacts. While this argument is valid in expressing a risk associated with unrestricted Internet access, it does not necessarily justify a complete denial of access, as there could be other methods of control. Thus, this argument is moderately strong but somewhat narrow in scope.

Argument II: No, denying access to the Internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information; instead, the access may be controlled.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the significant educational and informational value of the Internet, suggesting a more balanced approach—controlling rather than denying access. It addresses the importance of the Internet as a resource for learning and development, making it a strong argument as it proposes an alternative solution that considers both benefits and potential risks.

Conclusion: Argument II is strong as it considers both the benefits and risks, suggesting controlled access rather than a complete denial. Argument I is moderately strong but limited in scope as it focuses primarily on one risk. However, both arguments address important aspects of the issue.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, with this the students falling in a particular range of marks can be treated on par.

• Analysis: This argument supports the grading system by suggesting that it allows students within a specific score range to be grouped together, reducing the focus on minor mark differences. This approach can help reduce unhealthy competition and may promote a more balanced view of student performance. This is a strong argument, as it highlights a key benefit of grading that is directly related to the question.

Argument II: No, it will be difficult to rank the students when required to be short-listed.

• Analysis: This argument points out a practical challenge with the grading system, as it may make it harder to differentiate between students within the same grade bracket for purposes like admissions or job placements. This is also a strong argument, as it addresses a significant drawback of the grading system in situations where precise ranking is necessary.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as each addresses important and directly relevant aspects of switching to a grading system—one focusing on the benefits of fairer assessment, and the other on the challenges in ranking students.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, in shopping malls one can get everything under one roof at a cheaper rate.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the convenience and potential cost savings for consumers that shopping malls can provide by offering a wide variety of goods in one location. It is relevant because it addresses a benefit of malls that could be appealing to shoppers and city planners. This is a strong argument as it directly relates to the advantages that malls can offer in terms of accessibility and pricing.

Argument II: No, it will not be convenient for many people to go to a shopping mall for purchases of day-to-day requirements.

• Analysis: This argument points out a potential drawback of shopping malls, particularly for individuals who may rely on smaller, local shops for their daily needs. It suggests that the closure of smaller shops could inconvenience those who prefer or need closer access to daily essentials. This is a strong argument as it directly addresses a significant disadvantage of encouraging shopping malls at the expense of small shops.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as each addresses a critical consideration in the decision—one focusing on the benefits of shopping malls and the other on the accessibility and convenience of smaller shops.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

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).

Argument I: No, instead the thickness of plastic bags, which can be used without much damage to the environment, should be specified.

• Analysis: This argument suggests a middle-ground approach, proposing regulation rather than an outright ban. By increasing the thickness of plastic bags, it may make them more durable and reusable, potentially reducing waste. This is a strong argument because it provides an alternative solution to address environmental concerns without a complete ban, making it directly relevant and important to the question.

Argument II: Yes, use of plastic bags causes various problems like water pollution and water-logging, and hence it is necessary to ban it.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the environmental problems caused by plastic bags, including water pollution and water-logging, which are significant issues. It supports the idea of a total ban as a necessary step to mitigate these environmental impacts. This is a strong argument as it addresses the direct consequences of plastic bag usage on the environment, which is a core consideration in the policy decision.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address different but significant aspects of the issue—one proposes regulation as an alternative, and the other supports a ban based on environmental harm.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that merit should be the sole criterion for government jobs, without special reservations. However, it does not specifically address the unique case of single-child families or consider potential social or demographic reasons for the reservation policy. Since it lacks direct relevance to the specific group in question (single-child families) and focuses broadly on reservations, it is a weak argument.

Argument II: Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt a single-child norm.

• Analysis: This argument implies that offering reservation in jobs could act as an incentive for families to adopt a single-child norm. However, there is little evidence that such a reservation policy would significantly impact family planning decisions. This connection is tenuous, making the argument weak as it is not directly and practically relevant to the question of job reservations for single-child families.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak because they either fail to directly address the specific policy question or lack a practical basis.

Answer: D (if neither argument I nor II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, it will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kickstart some ‘self-employment’ venture.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that an unemployment allowance could be a positive financial support, helping youth while they search for jobs or even enabling them to start their own ventures. This is a strong argument because it addresses a potential benefit of the policy, providing direct support for individuals in need and encouraging productive use of the allowance.

Argument II: No, it will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.

• Analysis: This argument raises the concern that giving an allowance might reduce the motivation to seek work actively, potentially leading to dependency or promoting idleness. This is also a strong argument as it addresses a possible unintended consequence of the policy, which is crucial for evaluating the potential impact on society and youth behavior.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address significant and directly related concerns about the potential effects of an unemployment allowance.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, they must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that scientists should prioritize national service over personal or professional achievements. However, it does not address practical considerations, such as how their work abroad might contribute to India's reputation, international collaboration, or the advancement of science globally. Additionally, expecting scientists to disregard career growth and resources is unrealistic and does not address core issues related to the policy. This makes it a weak argument.

Argument II: No, we have enough talent, let them stay where they want.

• Analysis: This argument asserts that there is no need to recall scientists, as there is already sufficient talent in India. However, it doesn’t address whether Indian scientists abroad could bring valuable experience, networks, or skills back to India, nor does it address the potential benefits of their contributions from abroad. This makes the argument weak, as it does not engage with the primary question’s implications.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak, as they fail to address key aspects relevant to the decision of calling scientists back to India, such as the potential benefits or drawbacks of their work abroad for India.

Answer: D (if neither argument I nor II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, it is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that because non-vegetarian food is costly, it is not affordable for many people. However, this reasoning is weak because the expense of non-vegetarian food does not justify a ban; affordability issues don't make a strong case for banning something altogether. Many other products are also expensive, yet they aren’t banned just for being costly.
• Conclusion: This is a weak argument as it lacks relevance to the main question of whether a ban is necessary for reasons beyond cost.

Argument II: No, nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.

• Analysis: This argument highlights that in a democratic country, citizens should have the freedom to make personal choices, including dietary preferences. This directly addresses the question by appealing to the principle of individual rights and freedoms in a democracy.
• Conclusion: This is a strong argument because it presents a relevant and significant reason for opposing the ban, based on democratic values.

Correct Answer:
The correct answer is: (b) if only argument II is strong.

Arguments:

1. Argument I: "No, Kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India."

   • Analysis: While this argument points out the beauty of Kashmir and its economic contribution to India, it does not engage with the political, historical, or strategic significance of the territory. The aesthetic and economic factors are secondary to the larger issues at play in the territorial dispute. It may be considered a trivial aspect of the question since it focuses on beauty and economic gain without addressing the more pressing geopolitical concerns.

2. Argument II: "Yes, this would help settle conflicts."

   • Analysis: This argument suggests that giving away Kashmir could lead to a resolution of ongoing conflicts. However, it lacks specificity and does not provide a clear rationale for why this would effectively lead to peace. The assumption that this action would automatically lead to conflict resolution is overly simplistic and does not take into account the complexities of Indo-Pak relations. It does not provide strong evidence or reasoning to support the claim, making it weak.

Conclusion:

Given the analyses:

• Argument I is weak because it focuses on superficial qualities and economic aspects that do not address the core issues of territorial integrity or national security.
• Argument II is also weak because it presents an oversimplified view of a complex issue without strong supporting arguments.

Thus, both arguments fail to provide strong reasoning related to the question of whether India should give away Kashmir.

Final Answer:

Therefore, the answer is (a) if neither argument I nor II is strong.

Argument I: No, correspondence courses help needy students to pursue studies and earn at the same time.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes the accessibility and flexibility that correspondence courses provide, especially for students who need to work while studying. This is a significant consideration as it addresses the financial and logistical barriers to education that correspondence courses can help overcome. Thus, it is a strong argument, directly related to the question and important for those who might rely on such courses.

Argument II: Yes, quality education is not possible without teachers and classrooms.

• Analysis: This argument highlights concerns about the quality of education in correspondence courses, arguing that the absence of a classroom setting and direct teacher interaction may hinder the educational experience. This is directly related to the quality aspect of education and is an important factor to consider when debating the continuation of correspondence courses. Therefore, it is also a strong argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they each provide critical perspectives on accessibility and quality in the context of graduate-level correspondence courses.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes that uniforms may create a cohesive and professional environment in colleges, as uniforms can help ensure that students are dressed in a way that is perceived as decent and appropriate. This is directly related to the question of implementing uniforms, as it addresses one of the potential benefits of such a policy. Therefore, it is a strong argument.

Argument II: No, college students should not be regimented, and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to college.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the importance of autonomy and freedom of expression for college students, which is often valued as part of their transition to adulthood. It directly addresses a core concern regarding the imposition of uniforms: that it may restrict students’ personal choices. This is a significant consideration in the debate on college uniforms, making it a strong argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they each provide valid and directly relevant perspectives on the policy question—one emphasizing ambience and uniformity, and the other emphasizing autonomy and individuality.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).