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.
16.
Statement: Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?
Arguments:
Yes. They make their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
No. They leave their homes because of hunger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.
Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.
Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?
Arguments:
No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.
Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances.
Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.
Statement: Should there be more than one High Court in each state in India?
Arguments:
No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers' money.
Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time.
Clearly, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold.
Statement: Should judiciary be independent of the executive?
Arguments:
Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.
No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures.
Statement: Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments:
No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
