All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Directions: In making decisions about an imp... Start Learning for Free
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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?
Arguments:
I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.
II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.
  • a)
    Only argument I is strong.
  • b)
    Only argument II is strong.
  • c)
    Either I or II is strong.
  • d)
    Both I and II are strong.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: In making decisions about an important question, it is de...
Both the arguments support the cause of prioritising the list. It is more important to suffice the hunger than to construct parks. As the sustainable development agenda lacked economic inputs (financial impact of policies), it was not based on reality. Thus, it requires prioritisation of goals now. So, option 4 is the correct answer.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: In making decisions about an important question, it is de...
Importance of Strong Arguments
In the context of prioritizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is crucial to evaluate arguments based on their relevance and urgency.
Argument I: Urgency of Addressing Hunger
- Argument I highlights the pressing issue of hunger, stating that "almost a billion people go to bed hungry."
- This argument underscores the need for immediate action on fundamental human needs rather than less urgent projects, such as park development.
- It directly relates to the question of prioritization by questioning the effectiveness of certain targets when basic survival is at stake.
Argument II: Economic Inputs in Development Goals
- Argument II discusses the inclusiveness of the sustainable development agenda, suggesting that it may have overlooked critical economic factors.
- By asserting that the process was "well-meaning but painfully inclusive," it critiques the approach taken in formulating the SDGs.
- This argument indicates that effective prioritization should consider economic viability and impact, which is essential for long-term success.
Conclusion: Strength of Both Arguments
- Both arguments are strong as they address significant aspects of the prioritization of the SDGs.
- Argument I focuses on immediate human needs, while Argument II emphasizes the importance of economic considerations in development planning.
- Together, they advocate for a more effective approach to tackling the goals, making them relevant and important in decision-making.
Therefore, the correct answer is option 'D': Both I and II are strong.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: In making decisions about important questions, 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 question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument, and then mark your answer accordingly.Should the state governments be allowed to retain major shares of the central taxes collected in the respective states?Arguments:I. No, the central government should receive the major share as most of the developmental programmes are funded by the central government.II. Yes, most of the state governments are short of funds and they badly need more funds.

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller on e).Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.Q. Which of the following is the main theme of the passage?Your answer is correct

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller on e).Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.Q. Which of the following is least likely to be an objective of the Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space, as can be understood from the passage?Your answer is correct

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.We have not inherited this earth from our forefathers, but borrowed it from future generation. These are the words that make us think about our past, present and future just in a single sentence.We are the stewards of the Mother Earth and its natural resources, not the owners. What we have received from our forefathers, its our duty to pass it safely to the next generation and in return we are allowed to use the resources for our livelihood. But instead of using it sustainably we started exploiting Mother Nature for our luxurious needs. And till now we have already exploited it so much that if we do not pay our attention to sustainable development, were surely leading to a disastrous end and nobody else would be responsible for this collateral damage.Sustainable development can be achieved only through changing our consumption patterns which should be matched with the carrying capacity of our planet. For a given region, carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a given species that an areas resources can sustain indefinitely without significantly depleting or degrading those resources. Consequences of unsustainable development are many, but climate change in our planet is occurring as a slow roller coaster. As per a latest computer modelling study published on March 2, 2016 in The Lancet, India will witness 1.36 lakh deaths by 2050 attributable to agriculturally mediated changes caused due to climate change. And, globally over a billion will be killed due to climate change by 2050.Sustainable development can be attained only by sustainable consumptions, which can only be decided by human beings as to how to adapt their lifestyles which reduce the consumption of resources and check the damage being done to ecology. Sustainable development for achieving quality life can only be possible if we sensibly choose our needs and requirements. As a consumer one should be conscious of products which are eco-friendly and resource conservation oriented.Keep India Beautiful (KIB) has been established to promote a Clean, Green Healthy India. KIB believes in enabling communities to take ownership of their projects and of the results. We place utmost emphasis on the awareness that one must Keep India Beautiful as this is the commitment required from every citizen. Any business, industry, community, city or country, if it is not sustainable, it will always be a drain on resources. We are now at the stagewhere we must challenge old thinking, bringing a greater awareness to all that we have to understand what needs to be done for sustainable development. It is important for the betterment of our communities to have a greater awareness of the role that each of us plays in creating a sustainable world.Q. Which of the following is not true with respect to the passage?

We have not inherited this earth from our forefathers, but borrowed it from future generation. These are the words that make us think about our past, present and future just in a single sentence.We are the stewards of the Mother Earth and its natural resources, not the owners. What we have received from our forefathers, its our duty to pass it safely to the next generation and in return we are allowed to use the resources for our livelihood. But instead of using it sustainably we started exploiting Mother Nature for our luxurious needs. And till now we have already exploited it so much that if we do not pay our attention to sustainable development, were surely leading to a disastrous end and nobody else would be responsible for this collateral damage.Sustainable development can be achieved only through changing our consumption patterns which should be matched with the carrying capacity of our planet. For a given region, carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a given species that an areas resources can sustain indefinitely without significantly depleting or degrading those resources. Consequences of unsustainable development are many, but climate change in our planet is occurring as a slow roller coaster. As per a latest computer modelling study published on March 2, 2016 in The Lancet, India will witness 1.36 lakh deaths by 2050 attributable to agriculturally mediated changes caused due to climate change. And, globally over a billion will be killed due to climate change by 2050.Sustainable development can be attained only by sustainable consumptions, which can only be decided by human beings as to how to adapt their lifestyles which reduce the consumption of resources and check the damage being done to ecology. Sustainable development for achieving quality life can only be possible if we sensibly choose our needs and requirements. As a consumer one should be conscious of products which are eco-friendly and resource conservation oriented.Keep India Beautiful (KIB) has been established to promote a Clean, Green Healthy India. KIB believes in enabling communities to take ownership of their projects and of the results. We place utmost emphasis on the awareness that one must Keep India Beautiful as this is the commitment required from every citizen. Any business, industry, community, city or country, if it is not sustainable, it will always be a drain on resources. We are now at the stagewhere we must challenge old thinking, bringing a greater awareness to all that we have to understand what needs to be done for sustainable development. It is important for the betterment of our communities to have a greater awareness of the role that each of us plays in creating a sustainable world.Q. What is the primary concern of the passage?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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 the government focus on prioritisation of the most effective targets in the list of 169 'Sustainable Development Goals'?Arguments:I. Yes, at a time when almost a billion people go to bed hungry, we need to ask if tree-filled parks for the elderly are the most urgent development priority.II. Yes, the sustainable development agenda was the result of a well-meaning but painfully inclusive process that lacked economic inputs.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either I or II is strong.d)Both I and II are strong.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup