Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions: In making a decision about an im...

The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:

(A) if only I is strong

(B) if only II is strong

(D) if neither I nor II is strong

Statement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?

Arguments:

I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.

II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.

a)
(A)
b)
(B)
c)
(C)
d)
(D)

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is d...

(II) cannot be held as strong, as playing more cricket, without rest, would deteriorate performance and make cricket more a game of stamina or fitness, as players increasingly may drop out due to fatigue or injury. Consequently, the audience shall lose interest when they do not see their favorite players playing.

Only (I) is strong.

Hence, the correct option is (A).

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Free Test

FREE

TISS-NET Mock Test- 1
100 Ques | 100 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CAT tests

Community Answer

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is d...

Understanding the Arguments
In evaluating the statement about whether the Indian cricket team should be given more rest, we analyze both arguments presented.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- Relevance to Performance: This argument suggests that more cricket affects the team's performance negatively.
- Impact on Players: Continuous play can lead to fatigue, injuries, and burnout, which are critical factors in maintaining competitive performance.
- Support for Rest: By advocating for more rest, the argument aligns with the health and efficiency of the players, making it strong.
Argument II: Weak Argument
- Commercial Focus: This argument centers around financial benefits rather than player welfare or performance.
- Public Demand: While it's true that more matches can generate more revenue and satisfy public interest, it overlooks the potential negative consequences on team performance.
- Neglecting Key Issues: The argument fails to address the core question regarding the well-being of the players, making it weak.
Conclusion
- Overall Evaluation: Argument I is strong as it focuses on player performance and health, which are crucial for the team's success. In contrast, Argument II, while valid from a business perspective, does not respond effectively to the main concern of player performance and well-being.
- Correct Answer: Therefore, the answer is (A) if only I is strong.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: In making decisions about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments. '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.The given question is followed by arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and mark your answer accordingly.Should Indians shift their focus on other games rather than cricket, the much revered game in India, to improve performance in Olympics?Arguments:I. No, India has more important issues like malnutrition and lack of sanitation and hygiene to address.II. Yes, many potential players have lost hope to make a career in sports due to lack of attention to other sports, as compared to cricket.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.According to the passage, which of the following changes came in 2005?I. The realization that it would be pointless to rate people on a scale.II. The growing importance of accountability and merit based pay systems.III. The system of annual wage increase for employees who performed well.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.Which of the following statements about the Agile Manifesto is true?I. It reformed the existing system of performance appraisal.II. It was a new system aimed at assessing individual performance of employees.III. It took into consideration important factors such as self- motivation, and teamwork.IV. It gave importance to customer feedback, and taking decisions that were influenced by it.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.Which of the following factors contributed to the growth in the importance given to accountability in the 1970s?I. The rise in the inflation rateII. The growing importance of annual wage increasesIII. The balance of payments crisis

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.Which of the following provides the most suitable title for the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments in so far as they are related to the question. Weak arguments may not be directly related to the question, maybe of minor importance, or maybe related to some insignificant aspect of the question.The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which of the arguments is strong/weak. Mark your answer according to the codes given below:(A) if only I is strong(B) if only II is strong(C) if either I or II is strong(D) if neither I nor II is strongStatement: Should the Indian cricket team be given more rest in-between the series?Arguments:I. Yes, because playing more cricket is affecting their performance.II. No, more cricket means more money and people want to watch more cricket.a)(A)b)(B)c)(C)d)(D)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam