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.
36.
Statement: Should taxes on colour television be further increased?
Arguments:
Yes, Colour television is a luxury item and only rich people buy them.
No, Televisions are bought by the poor too.
Clearly, taxes on an item cannot be increased or decreased on the basis of the financial position of the people who buy it. So, both arguments I and II do not hold strong.
Statement: Should the educated unemployed youth be paid "unemployment allowance" by the Government?
Arguments:
Yes. It will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kick-start some 'self-employment' venture.
No. It will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.
Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. So, argument I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So, argument II also holds.
Statement: Should higher education be restricted to only those who can bear the expenditure?
Arguments:
Yes. Higher education is very costly; hence it should not be given free.
No. There are a large number of brilliant students who cannot afford to pay and they should be given higher education.
For the all-round progress of the nation, all the students, especially the talented and intelligent ones, must avail of higher education, even if the government has to pay for it. So, only argument II holds.
Statement: Should those who receive dowry, despite the law prohibiting it, be punished?
Arguments:
Yes. Those who violate the law must be punished.
No. Dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.
Clearly, laws are made to ensure that no person pursues the practice. So, persons who violate the laws need to be punished. Thus, argument I holds. A wrong practice, no matter how firmly rooted, needs to be ended. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Is the Government justified in spending so much on defence?
Arguments:
Yes. Safety of the country is of prime importance.
No. During peace, this money could be used for the development of the country.
Clearly, defence is necessary for the safety of the country, which is of prime importance. So, argument I holds. Also, a country can concentrate on internal progress and development only when it is safe from external aggressions. So, argument II does not hold.
