Statement And Arguments — Part 2 MCQs with Explanations

Income-tax is levied so that every citizen can contribute a share of his earning towards the infrastructural development of the nation. So, argument I seems to be vague. However, income-tax is no doubt a good source of revenue for the government. Hence, argument II holds strong.

Making education free for all is not the only means to ensure literacy. An awareness needs to be aroused for this. So, argument I is vague. Also, such a step would require immense funds and lead to financial drain. So, argument II holds.

Abolishing the import duty on electronic goods shall reduce the costs of imported goods and adversely affect the sale of the domestic products, thus giving a setback to the Indian electronics industry. So, argument II holds strong. Argument I does not provide a convincing reason.

Taking care of the parents is a moral duty of the children and cannot be thrust upon them legally, nor such a compulsion can ensure good care of the old people. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Clearly, higher education is not the cause of unemployment. In fact, it has created greater job opportunities. So, argument II is vague. Also, higher education promotes the country's development. So, argument I holds.

Clearly, India needs to have military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Clearly, with so many people around in a joint family, there is more security. Also, work is shared. So, argument I holds. In nuclear families, there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.

Clearly, the luxury hotels are a mark of country's standard and a place for staying for the affluent foreign tourists. So, argument II holds. Argument I is not a strong reason because ban on hotels is not a way to do away with the activities of international criminals.

Clearly, shifting agriculture is a practice in which a certain crop is grown on a land and when it becomes infertile it is left bare and another piece of land is chosen. Clearly, it is a wasteful practice. So, only argument I holds.

Clearly, a good behaviour may at some point of time lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such behaviour may be mistaken for our weakness and it would be difficult to continue with it if the other country doesn't stop its sinister activities. Hence, II also holds.

Physical force can accomplish a task by compulsion, while the influential writings can mould the thinking of an individual and change his discretion into accomplishing the task wilfully. So, only argument I holds strong.

Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.

Clearly, officers are paid duly for the jobs they do. So, they must do it honestly. Thus, argument II alone holds.

Clearly, trees play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and so must be preserved. So, argument I holds. Also, trees form the basic source of timber and a complete ban on cutting of trees would harm timber based industries. So, only a controlled cutting of trees should be allowed and the loss replenished by planting more trees. So, argument II is also valid.

Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.

Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.

Clearly, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I holds.

Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.

The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.

Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.

Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.

Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.

A hike in fees is no means to make the students more serious in studies. So, argument I is vague. However, with the increase in fees, poor meritorious students would not be able to afford post-graduate studies. So, argument II holds.

The armed forces must consist of physically strong and mentally mature individuals to take care of defence properly. So, argument I holds strong. Clearly, argument II holds no relevance.

Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase the production. So, argument I is strong enough. Argument II is vague because mechanization will only eliminate wasteful employment, not create unemployment.

Clearly, oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds strong.

Clearly, the variety of news helps people to develop their own views. So, argument I is vague. Also, controlled news shall be a partial produce. So, it loses credibility Thus, argument II holds.

Clearly, taxes on an item cannot be increased or decreased on the basis of the financial position of the people who buy it. So, both arguments I and II do not hold strong.

Clearly, laws are made to ensure that no person pursues the practice. So, persons who violate the laws need to be punished. Thus, argument I holds. A wrong practice, no matter how firmly rooted, needs to be ended. So, argument II is vague.

Clearly, defence is necessary for the safety of the country, which is of prime importance. So, argument I holds. Also, a country can concentrate on internal progress and development only when it is safe from external aggressions. So, argument II does not hold.

Learning martial arts is necessary for girls for self-defence. So, argument I holds. However, argument II is vague since a training in these arts has nothing to do with their feminine grace.

A single network of all the rivers in the country would surely enable a good distribution of water to all areas, So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to the nation cannot be hindered owing to lack of knowhow. Ways can be devised to build up such a network. So, argument I is vague.

Clearly, the awards are given for individual excellence and perfection. So, only argument II holds strong.

'Octroi' is a custom duty. If octroi is abolished, the practice of bringing in things from foreign countries illegally will be abolished. So, argument I holds strong. Also, if octroi is abolished, the income to the government in the way of the duty paid shall be diminished. So, argument II also holds strong.

Clearly, unscheduled and untimely holidays would naturally cause the work to suffer. So, argument I holds strong. Also, a holiday is not necessary to pay homage to someone. So, argument II is vague.

Our country cannot support USA's policies blindly without analysis, just to gain monetary help. Also, we should not withdraw our support without considering the policies, just because some other nations have done so. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Clearly, such words on cigarette packs would warn the smokers beforehand of its adverse effects. So, argument I holds strong. However, smoking is a bad habit with long-term health hazards and is no means of enjoyment. So, argument II is vague.

Shuffling of Cabinet ministers is just not a regular process, but a step to ensure proper working and implementation of schemes and avoid corruption. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

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.

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.