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.
41.
Statement: Should administrative officers be transferred after one or two years?
Arguments:
Yes. They get friendly with local people and are manipulated by them.
No. By the time their policies and schemes start taking shape, they have to leave.
No. This will create a lot of administrative hassles and cause a lot of inconvenience to the officers.
Clearly, the acquaintance of administrative officers with the local people poses no harm. So, argument I is vague. However, both II and III hold strong, because making transfers too often would neither give them enough time to settle down comfortably in a new place, nor enable them to formulate and implement their policies in toto. This would also be administratively impossible.
Statement: Should the consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases.
No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants.
No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on human body.
Yes. It is banned in many other countries also.
The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid. Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intake of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless its harmful effects have been proved. So, III holds strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by other countries. So, IV also does not hold.
