Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions: The question given below is follo...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.
Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?
Arguments:
I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.
II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.

a)
Only argument I is strong.
b)
Only argument II is strong.
c)
Either argument I or II is strong.
d)
Neither argument I nor II is strong.

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

FREE This question is part of

Test Level 2: Critical Reasoning

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numb...

Introduction:
The question asks whether the cost of conventional fuels should be increased to alleviate global environmental problems. Two arguments are given, and we need to determine which one is strong and which one is weak.

Argument I:
Yes, the decrease in the demand for conventional fuels as a result of high prices would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.

Explanation of Argument I:
- The argument states that increasing the cost of conventional fuels would lead to a decrease in demand.
- When the price of a product increases, people tend to use less of it as it becomes more expensive.
- If the demand for conventional fuels decreases, it would reduce the exploitation of natural resources, as these fuels are derived from finite resources such as coal, oil, and gas.
- The argument is strong as it suggests a direct and logical link between increasing the cost of conventional fuels and reducing the exploitation of natural resources.

Argument II:
No, the government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.

Explanation of Argument II:
- The argument suggests that instead of increasing the cost of conventional fuels, the government should invest in research and technology to make renewable energy resources more attractive.
- This argument assumes that making renewable energy resources more attractive will automatically reduce the use of conventional fuels.
- While it is true that investing in renewable energy research and technology is important, it does not address the immediate need to reduce the consumption of conventional fuels.
- The argument lacks a direct link between spending more money on renewable energy research and reducing the exploitation of natural resources.
- Therefore, this argument is weak in the context of the given question.

Conclusion:
Based on the explanations provided, it can be concluded that argument I is strong and argument II is weak. Increasing the cost of conventional fuels would directly lead to a decrease in demand, thereby reducing the exploitation of natural resources. However, solely focusing on research and technology for renewable energy does not address the immediate need to reduce the consumption of conventional fuels. Both arguments may have their merits, but argument I is stronger in the given context.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Attention CAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.Go through the following statements:I. Homosexuals are like heterosexuals.II. Homosexuals have the right to make their own decisions.III. Homosexuals are the same as hererosexuals.The author of the passage would agree with which of the above statements.

View answer

Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?

View answer

Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the author is

View answer

Scientists recently declared that the evidence is compelling enough to say that humanitys impact on the Earths atmosphere, oceans and wildlife has pushed the world into the new epoch.Britain is a world leader on the environment and has played a pivotal role in the European Union on this issue since 1986, when Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act, which established the EUs competence in this area. Yet the impact that leaving the EU would have on the UKs environmental standards rarely features in discussions. The evidence so far is clear: families in Britain, rivers, beaches and special places would pay the price if UK voted to leave.In 1995, under the last Conservative government, the UK was dirty man of Europe. Some 83% of the household waste went to landfill and just 7% was recycled or composted. By 2014, thanks to a series of EU directives, the UKs recycling rate had reached 45%.The UK currently recycles 90% of construction materials, well ahead of other countries. The Birds and Habitats Directives enabled bird and carnivore species to recover. The Natura 2000 Directive obliges the UK government to provide protected nature zones. Renewable energy capacity is growing, thanks to national targets set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive. In 2013, 15% of electricity produced in the UK came from renewable sources. Not only is the carbon footprint shrinking, it has created opportunities for renewable energy companies to grow. EU environmental legislation allows the phasing out of inefficient lightbulbs on an EU-wide basis. Also, higher standards on new car efficiency help lower fuel costs. Such strong regulations allow monitoring of environmental standards and tracking deviations. All this progress is at risk if the UK votes to leave. Anyone who thinks the environment will be better off if UK left the EU should take a long hard look at the Tory record.The Tories have talked green but acted blue.The Chinese and Indian governments have invited the European commission to help them to clean up their water and air. The EU now has global expertise in the environment. The evidence is clear. The EU has more influence globally with the UK as a member. Andas a member, UK has more influence globally. UKs voice in the Paris climate change talks was amplified because it is a part of a club of 28 countries. Leaving would mean implementing EU environment law without a seat at the table and a vote in decisions. When the UK can lead from the inside, why would it walk away? Ensuring the UK has a cleaner, greener future relies on the EU membership. Anyone who argues otherwise will be on the wrong side of history.Q.What could the Tories have done to make the author comment they talked green but acted blue?I. They tried to sell off Englands forests.II. They increased solar subsidies.III. They scrapped support for wind farm subsidies.IV. They focused on investing in low-carbon projects.

View answer

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Scientists recently declared that the evidence is compelling enough to say that humanitys impact on the Earths atmosphere, oceans and wildlife has pushed the world into the new epoch.Britain is a world leader on the environment and has played a pivotal role in the European Union on this issue since 1986, when Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act, which established the EUs competence in this area. Yet the impact that leaving the EU would have on the UKs environmental standards rarely features in discussions. The evidence so far is clear: families in Britain, rivers, beaches and special places would pay the price if UK voted to leave.In 1995, under the last Conservative government, the UK was dirty man of Europe. Some 83% of the household waste went to landfill and just 7% was recycled or composted. By 2014, thanks to a series of EU directives, the UKs recycling rate had reached 45%.The UK currently recycles 90% of construction materials, well ahead of other countries. The Birds and Habitats Directives enabled bird and carnivore species to recover. The Natura 2000 Directive obliges the UK government to provide protected nature zones. Renewable energy capacity is growing, thanks to national targets set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive. In 2013, 15% of electricity produced in the UK came from renewable sources. Not only is the carbon footprint shrinking, it has created opportunities for renewable energy companies to grow. EU environmental legislation allows the phasing out of inefficient lightbulbs on an EU-wide basis. Also, higher standards on new car efficiency help lower fuel costs. Such strong regulations allow monitoring of environmental standards and tracking deviations. All this progress is at risk if the UK votes to leave. Anyone who thinks the environment will be better off if UK left the EU should take a long hard look at the Tory record.The Tories have talked green but acted blue.The Chinese and Indian governments have invited the European commission to help them to clean up their water and air. The EU now has global expertise in the environment. The evidence is clear. The EU has more influence globally with the UK as a member. Andas a member, UK has more influence globally. UKs voice in the Paris climate change talks was amplified because it is a part of a club of 28 countries. Leaving would mean implementing EU environment law without a seat at the table and a vote in decisions. When the UK can lead from the inside, why would it walk away? Ensuring the UK has a cleaner, greener future relies on the EU membership. Anyone who argues otherwise will be on the wrong side of history.Q.Which of the following is true in regard to UKs exit from the EU?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question given below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the given arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument.Should cost of conventional fuels be increased to alleviate global environmental problems?Arguments:I. Yes, the decrease in the demand of conventional fuels as a result of high price would lessen the exploitation of natural resources.II. No, government must spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to make the use of renewable energy resources more attractive than that of conventional fuels.a)Only argument I is strong.b)Only argument II is strong.c)Either argument I or II is strong.d)Neither argument I nor II is strong.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam