Practice MCQ Questions and Answer on Statement And Arguments

101. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should India have no military force at all?

Arguments:
I. No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence.
II. Yes. Many Indians believe in non-violence.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 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.

102. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Can pollution be controlled?

Arguments :
I. Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled.
II. No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 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.

103. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Are nuclear families better than joint families?

Arguments :
I. No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work.
II. Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

Answer & Solution Answer: Option E Solution: 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.

104. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Is paying ransom or agreeing to the conditions of kidnappers of political figures, a proper course of action?

Arguments :
I. Yes. The victims must be saved at all cost.
II. No. It encourages the kidnappers to continue their sinister activities.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

Answer & Solution Answer: Option E Solution: 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.

105. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should an organization like UNO be dissolved?

Arguments :
I. Yes. With cold war coming to an end, such organizations have no role to play
II. No, In the absence of such organizations there may be a world war.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 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.

106. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?

Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.
II. No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 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.

107. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government?

Arguments :
I. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
II. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong; Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favour to some people at the cost of government funds. So, argument I does not hold.

108. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should India become a permanent member of UN's Security Council?

Arguments :
I. Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity.
II. No. Let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 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.

109. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should high chimneys be installed in industries?

Arguments :
I. Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.
II. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

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

110. Directions :

Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should there be compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other?

Arguments :
I. No. This is an intrusion to the privacy of an individual and hence cannot be tolerated.
II. Yes. This will substantially reduce the risk of giving birth to children with serious ailments.

• (A) Only argument I is strong
• (B) Only argument II is strong
• (C) Either I or II is strong
• (D) Neither I nor II is strong

Show Answer

 Clearly, such a step would help to prevent the growth of diseases like AIDS. So, only argument II is strong.