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.
31.
Statement: Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than through entrance tests?
Arguments:
Yes. It will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.
Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
No. The standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different Boards and universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.
Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because of the expenditure it entails. So, argument I does not hold. Also, students who are intelligent enough to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance tests. So, II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the candidates to uniform test and assessment. So, only III holds strong.
Statement: Should there be reservation of jobs in the organizations in the private sector also as in the public sector undertakings in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This would give more opportunities of development to the weaker sections of the society and thus help reduce the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden in India.
No. The private sector does not get any government assistance and therefore they should not be saddled with such policies.
No. Nowhere else in the world such a practice is being followed.
No. The management of the private sector undertaking would not agree to such compulsions.
The reservation of jobs in the private sector too would surely increase opportunities for weaker sections to improve their economic plight. Thus, argument I is strong enough. Also, private sector companies work on a good profit margin and they can and will have to accommodate such a policy if implemented. So, neither II nor IV holds strong. Further, just imitating other countries holds no relevance. So, argument III also does not hold.
Statement: Should workers/employees be allowed to participate in the management of factories in India?
Arguments:
Yes. It is the present management theory.
No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.
Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as literacy is an essential criteria to take proper decisions on policy matters regarding management of factories. Besides, workers, if involved in management, would surely be motivated to work more devotedly, thus enhancing productivity. So, both II and III follow. IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts given in II and III. So, IV also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in the matter of employment in every field?
Arguments:
Yes. They are equally capable.
No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
Yes. They should also go into the outside world.
In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against their will. They too have the right to be self-dependent. Besides, present-day women are well looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while II does not.
Statement: Should government established higher level Institutes of Technology (IIT's) be privatized?
Arguments:
Yes. Privatization will make these institutes financially healthy, competitive and quality conscious.
Yes. Privatization is the key of the new era - can we survive without it?
No. Standard of education of these institutes will fall.
Clearly, privatization leads to betterment in a bid to win over the others in the field and earn both good reputation and money. So, argument I holds strong. Besides, privatization cannot be opted for just because it is the present trend. Also, privatization would, in no way, deteriorate the educational standards. So, neither II nor III holds.
