Statement and Arguments Question Answers for UGC NET

Running in huge losses is not a good enough reason for banning the microfinance institutions unless they are in violation of laws and regulations. Thus, I is weak. Further, microfinance institutions are definitely not the sole source of easy finance and loans for the poor as peers, and other banks as well as the local moneylenders are other sources of finance for them. Thus, II is also a weak argument.

In today’s scenario, I definitely holds true. With the booming population, we continually need more land to accommodate more and more people and give them basic amenities. II is vague and does not provide any argument for not tinkering with the age old heritage. Thus, II is a weak argument.

I doesn’t specify the context in which the minors are distracted due to such websites. Further, such distractions are common to both minors and adults, which is the primary reason why social networking websites are banned at many workplaces. Thus, I is weak. II is weak as there are other ways of exercising legitimate freedom of speech and expression, and giving them access to social networking websites just for exercising this freedom would be erroneous.

Not all reality shows are against Indian values, and thus cannot be stopped. Thus, I is not strong. II is strong as stopping or banning of all the reality shows, without adequate reasons, will be infringing upon their freedom of speech and expression. Thus, only II holds strong.

Though it’s a debated proposition, many love marriages are indeed more successful than arranged ones, and secondly, the same cannot be said to be destroying the social fabric, which is essentially a vague term and varies from society to society. Many communities in India prefer love marriages to arranged ones. Thus I is a weak argument. II is vague and is not proving any argument.

Even with all its inherent problems, experience show that smaller states do have better governance, resource allocation and problem identification. Thus, I is strong. II only states a vague proposition and has not provided any argument in its favour. Thus, only I holds strong.

Just because it might disturb the unorganized retail sector is not an argument strong enough to disallow FDI. On the other hand, a slow and gradual transition from unorganized retail to organized retail should be the aim of the government. Thus, I is a weak argument. Experience show that foreign retailers do invest massively in cold storage, which will definitely help in solving India’s current problem in this area, which is post-harvest wastage. Thus, only II is strong.

Both the arguments are equally strong. If middlemen are eliminated, the companies will source directly from the farmers, which will result in farmers getting a better price for their produce. Thus, I holds. However, when these middlemen are eliminated, it’ll also result in a massive unemployment as there currently are various layers of middlemen groups comprising transporters, distributors etc. Thus, even argument II holds.

Both the arguments are strong and desirable. It’s true that various multi-brand retail chains skim down the backend costs to make the common products available at a much cheaper price. Secondly, such multi-brand retail chains will also create more employment opportunities as they’ll inevitably have to hire locals for the everyday jobs. Thus, both I and II hold true.

Only I is strong. If the content is hurting the religious or spiritual sentiments of people, the government should get such content removed. It is also incorrect to assume that the government cannot tinker with freedom of speech and expression of people. Our Constitution, which has given such freedoms to people, has also stated the limitations on such freedoms and thus the government will clearly be in its right to remove the objectionable content.