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.
16.
Statement: Should religion be taught in our schools?
Arguments:
No. Ours is a secular state.
Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.
No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfil its role in the 21st century.
Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact, these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present?
Arguments:
No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources.
Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay.
No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.
The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
Statement: Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced?
Arguments:
Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.
Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold.
Statement: Should class IV children have Board examination?
Arguments:
Yes. This will motivate the children to study and get higher marks, and thus more knowledge can be imbibed at a younger age.
No. The children will be forced to study and won't enjoy the process.
Yes. In today's competitive world the children need to be prepared right from the beginning to face such difficult examinations.
No. This will add pressure on tender aged children and leave very little time for them to play.
Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also holds. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, I does not hold strong.
Statement: Should the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike be enforced strictly?
Arguments:
Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all.
No. Each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion.
No. It does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and rest of the body is not.
Yes. It is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.
Clearly, the rule has been devised for the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this requires strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the discretion of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.
