Each question given below consists of a statement, 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 and
(E) If both I and II are strong.
11.
Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India?
Arguments:
No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country.
Yes. It is democracy - let people decide whom to vote.
Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.
Statement: Should officers accepting bribe be punished?
Arguments:
No. Certain circumstances may have compelled them to take bribe.
Yes. They should do the job they are entrusted with, honestly.
Statement: Should there be a complete ban on use of all types of chemical pesticides in India?
Arguments:
No. The pests will destroy all the crops and the farmers will have nothing to harvest.
Yes. The chemical pesticides used in agriculture pollute the water underground and this has become a serious health hazard.
Clearly, pesticides are meant to prevent the crops from harmful pests. But at the same time, they get washed away with water and contaminate the groundwater. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
Statement: Should cutting of trees be banned altogether?
Arguments:
Yes. It is very much necessary to do so to restore ecological balance.
No. A total ban would harm timber based industries.
Clearly, trees play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and so must be preserved. So, argument I holds. Also, trees form the basic source of timber and a complete ban on cutting of trees would harm timber based industries. So, only a controlled cutting of trees should be allowed and the loss replenished by planting more trees. So, argument II is also valid.
Statement: Should there be a restriction on the migration of people from one state to another state in India?
Arguments:
No. Any Indian citizen has a basic right to stay at any place of his/her choice and hence they cannot be stopped.
Yes. This is the way to effect an equitable distribution of resources across the states in India.
