Solved Examples: Statement and Arguments | Logical Reasoning for UGC NET PDF Download

Directions: Each 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.

Give Answer:

(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

(E) If both Arguments I and II follow

1. Statement: Should there be a total ban on the use of plastic bags?

Arguments:

I. Yes, plastic bags are non-biodegradable and cause environmental pollution.

II. No, it will cause inconvenience to people as plastic bags are very handy and useful.

Ans: (A) If only Argument I is strong

Sol: Argument I is strong because it highlights the environmental impact of plastic bags, which is a significant issue. Argument II, while true, does not outweigh the environmental concerns, making it a weaker argument in comparison.

2. Statement: Should foreign films be banned in India?

Arguments:

I. Yes, this will promote the local film industry and culture.

II. No, this will deprive Indian audiences of good quality films and global perspectives.

Ans: (B) If only Argument II is strong

Sol: Argument II is strong because it highlights the benefits of having access to a diverse range of films, which contributes to cultural exchange and education. Argument I, while supportive of local industries, does not provide a compelling reason to ban foreign films entirely.

3. Statement: Should there be a complete ban on smoking in public places?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it is harmful to the health of both smokers and non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

II. No, it would infringe on the personal freedom of individuals.

Ans: (A) If only Argument I is strong

Sol: Argument I is strong as it addresses public health concerns, which are of paramount importance. Argument II, although valid, does not outweigh the significant health risks associated with smoking in public places.

4. Statement: Should the government provide free higher education to all citizens?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it will ensure equal opportunities for all citizens regardless of their economic background.

II. No, it will put a tremendous financial burden on the government.

Ans: (E)  If both Arguments I and II follow

Sol: Both arguments are strong. Argument I emphasizes equality and opportunity, while Argument II points out the financial implications, making both points valid and significant.

5. Statement: Should the legal age for voting be reduced to 16 years?

Arguments:

I. Yes, 16-year-olds are mature enough to make informed decisions about their country's future.

II. No, they lack the necessary experience and understanding of political issues.

Ans: (D) If neither I nor II is strong

Sol: Both arguments have valid points but are weak in providing substantial evidence or reasoning. The maturity level and understanding of 16-year-olds can vary widely, making neither argument particularly strong.

6. Statement: Should the use of mobile phones be banned in schools?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it distracts students from their studies.

II. No, it is a necessary tool for modern education and communication.

Ans: (E)  If both Arguments I and II follow

Sol: Both arguments are strong. Argument I highlights the potential for distraction, while Argument II emphasizes the benefits and necessity of mobile phones in education.

7. Statement: Should the government censor the internet?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it will prevent the spread of harmful and false information.

II. No, it will infringe on the freedom of speech and access to information.

Ans: (E)  If both Arguments I and II follow

Sol: Both arguments are strong. Argument I addresses the need for controlling misinformation, while Argument II emphasizes the importance of maintaining freedom of speech and access to information.

8. Statement: Should there be a tax on sugary drinks?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it will reduce the consumption of unhealthy drinks and improve public health.

II. No, it will unfairly target low-income families who consume these drinks.

Ans: (A) If only Argument I is strong

Sol: Argument I is strong because it focuses on public health benefits. Argument II is weaker because it does not address the overall health benefits that can result from reduced consumption of sugary drinks.

9. Statement: Should there be a ban on junk food advertisements targeting children?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it will help reduce childhood obesity and promote healthier eating habits.

II. No, it will hurt the business of food companies and limit their marketing freedom.

Ans: (A) If only Argument I is strong

Sol: Argument I is strong as it addresses the public health issue of childhood obesity. Argument II is weaker because it prioritizes business interests over children's health.

10. Statement: Should the working hours be reduced to six hours a day?

Arguments:

I. Yes, it will improve the work-life balance and overall well-being of employees.

II. No, it will decrease productivity and hurt the economy.

Ans: (E)  If both Arguments I and II follow

Sol: Both arguments are strong. Argument I emphasizes the benefits of work-life balance, while Argument II highlights the potential economic impact, making both points valid.