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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > In making decisions about important question...

Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?

Arguments:

I. No: Until it affects the work.

II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.

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”.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be ...

I is not strong because instead of giving a reason, it adds a further clause. II is strong because discipline plays a major role in an educational institution.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitmentwill depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Verbal Ability (VA) & Reading Comprehension (RC)

Logical Reasoning (LR) and Data Interpretation (DI)

Top Courses for CAT

View all

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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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. “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. In each question below, is given a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are a ‘strong’ argument and which is/are a ‘weak’ argument.Statement: Should the habit of late-coming in educational institutions be checked?Arguments:I. No: Until it affects the work.II. Yes. Discipline must be maintained.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”.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam