Statement And Arguments — Part 1 MCQs with Explanations

Argument I is not strong because we should not copy other country. But II is strong because on reducing the number of holidays, the working time will be increased and so productivity will also increase.

Argument I is strong because when manufacturing of fire crackers is banned, a large workers involved in manufacturing it, will be jobless but II is vague because to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close the industry.

As parties who are rich, spend more money in conversing, banners etc., to support the position while other parties are not able to meet these facilities. Therefore, the election expenses met by the Government, will put the political corruption to an end. Hence, I argument is strong.

Only I follows. Because in India all people are equal. If the retirement age for academicians is increased, this will be unfair to non-academicians. As far experiences is concerned, then it is for all people in their fields. Therefore, in such circumstances why only for the academicians retirement age is increased.

By working of educated people in villages, their education will not be wasted but their will be the proper use of their education. On account of their education they will revolutionize agriculture and revamp rural atmosphere.

Harmonic development in all States is not possible so second argument is strong.

Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so as they want to keep only a boy child and do away with girl child. So, argument I hold strong. Also, people have right to know only about the health, development and general well-being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.

Closing, down public-sector enterprise ill definitely throw the engaged person out of employment. So, argument I hold strong. also, closing down is no solution for a loss- making enterprise. Rather , its causes of failure should be studied, canalized and the essential reforms implemented. Even if this does not work out, the enterprise may be privatized. So, argument II is vague.

Either I or II is strong. Generally the undesirable elements in processions do so wrong things with the purpose to disturb the peace. Hence restrictions for such processions is necessary. But in democratic country this is against the human race.

Clearly, India can export only the surplus and that which can be saved after fulfilling its own needs, to pay for its imports. Encouragement to export cannot lead to shortages as it shall provide the resources for imports. So, only argument I holds.

Clearly, harnessing solar energy will be helpful as it is an inexhaustible resource unlike other resources. So, argument I holds. But argument II is vague as solar energy is the cheapest form of energy.

Clearly, India cannot part with a state that is a major foreign exchange earner to it. So, argument I holds strong. Further, giving away a piece of land unconditionally and unreasonably is no solution to settle disputes. So, argument II is vague.

Clearly, cottage industries need to be promoted to create more job opportunities for rural people in the villages themselves. The reason that rural people are creative is vague. So, only argument II holds.

Clearly, encouraging the young entrepreneurs will open up the field for the establishment of new industries. Thus, it shall help in industrial development and not only employ the entrepreneurs but create more job opportunities for others as well. So, both the arguments hold strong.

Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.

Clearly, argument I is vague because at present too, many fields are open to all after graduation. However, eliminating the post-graduate courses would abolish higher and specialized studies which lead to understanding things better and deeply. So, argument II is valid.

Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and animal life. So, argument I alone holds.

Before indulging in new development programme it is much necessary to plan the exact target, policies and their implementation and the allocation of funds which shows the right direction to work. So, argument I holds strong. Also, planning ensures full utilization of available resources and funds and stepwise approach towards the target. So, spending a part of money on it is no wastage. Thus, argument II is not valid.

Clearly, I does not provide a strong reason in support of the statement. Also, it is not possible to analyze the really deserving and not deserving. So/argument II holds strong.

Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument I is vague. Also, at this level the awarding of degrees is impartial and simply based on his performance. So, argument II also does not hold.

The Constitution of India has laid down the doctrine of 'equality before the law'. So, argument II holds strong. Also, we cannot judge the intentions of a person behind committing a crime, So, argument I is vague.

The control of pollution, on one hand, seems to be impossible because of the ever-growing needs and the disconcern of the people but, on the other hand, the control is possible by a joint effort. So, either of the arguments will hold strong.

Privatization would no doubt lead to better services. But saying that this is the 'only way' is wrong. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II also seems to be vague.

Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.

Clearly, foreign films depict the alien culture but this only helps in learning more. So, argument I does not hold. Also, the reason stated in argument II is not strong enough in contradicting the ban. So, it also does not hold.

In buying things on instalments, a customer has to pay more as the interest is also included. So, argument I does not hold. Moreover, one who buys an item on instalments maintains his future budget accordingly as he is well acquainted with when and how much he has to pay, beforehand. So, argument II is also not valid.

Clearly, the autonomous status of the Doordarshan will be a step towards giving it independence for an impartial coverage. Autonomous status does not mean that the coverage will be decided by a few. So, only argument I holds.

Clearly, argument I gives a reason in support of the statement and so it does not hold strong against it. The adult education programme needs to be given priority because it shall eliminate adult illiteracy and thus help in further spread of education. So, only argument II is strong enough.

Clearly, instead of improving upon higher education, increasing the literacy rate should be heeded first. So, argument I holds. Also, more number of universities will produce more degree holders with the number of jobs remaining the same, thus increasing unemployment. So, argument II also holds strong.

Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.

Clearly, ban is necessary to protect our natural environment. So, none of the arguments is strong enough.

Clearly, the advertisements are/the means to introduce people with the product and its advantages. So, argument I holds strong. But argument II is vague because advertisements are an investment for better gain and not a, wastage.

Nowadays, computers have entered all walks of life and children need to be prepared for the same. So, argument II is strong. Argument I holds no relevance.

It is not necessary that any practice which has been in vogue for a long time is right and it must be continued. So, argument I is not strong. Also, a practice must be continued or discontinued in view of its merits/demerits and not on grounds of the expenditure or procedures it entails. The policy of transfer is generally practised to do away with corruption, which is absolutely essential. So, argument II also does not hold.

Both the arguments are strong enough. The conditions have to be agreed to, in order to save the life of the victims, though actually they ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnappers.

Religion binds people together through the name of God and human values. But at the same time it may create differences and ill-will among people. So, either of the arguments holds strong.

A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. So, argument I holds strong. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.

Clearly, imposing ban on fashionable dresses will be a restriction on the personal choice and hence the right to freedom of an individual. So, only argument II is strong.

An organization like UNO is meant to maintain peace all over and will always serve to prevent conflicts between countries. So, its role never ends. So, argument I does not hold. Also, lack of such an organization may in future lead to increased mutual conflicts and international wars, on account of lack of a common platform for mutual discussions. So, argument II holds.

Family planning is an essential step to curb population growth. So, argument I holds strong. Also, family planning being against the tenets of some of the Indian religions, it is not necessary to make it compulsory. Instead, it can be enforced by creating public awareness of the benefits of family planning. So, argument II also holds.