Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' arguments) and which is/are 'weak' arguments) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.
1.
Statement: Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments:
No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
Yes. This will increase productivity.
The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.
Statement: Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments:
Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments:
No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments:
Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold.
Statement: Should trade unions be banned completely?
Arguments:
Yes. Workers can concentrate on production.
No. This is the only way through which employees can put their demands before the management.
Yes. Employees get their illegal demands fulfilled through these unions.
No. Trade unions are not banned in other economically advanced countries.
Clearly, trade unions provide a common platform for the workers to voice their demands and protests and thus ensure that they are not subdued or exploited. So, argument II holds strong, while I and III do not. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument IV also does not hold strong.
