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.
21.
Statement: Should students take part in politics?
Arguments:
Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.
No. They should study and build up their career.
Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.
Statement: Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.
No. Such polls are conducted all over the world.
The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments:
Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
No. It will lead to an end of democracy.
Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.
Statement: Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?
Arguments:
No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.
No. It is against the principle of equality, does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?
Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
Statement: Should the vehicles older than 15 years be rejected in metros in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This is a significant step to lower down the pollution level in metros.
No. It will be very difficult for vehicle owners to shift to other parts in country because they will not get suitable job for their very existence.
Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.
