Q: Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can
make a considered judgement for casting their vote.
II. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest
parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: Clearly, if there were less candidates, the voters would find it easy to make a choice. So,
argument I holds. Also, every person satisfying the conditions laid down by the Constitution
must be given an opportunity and should not be denied the same just to cut down the number
of candidates. So, argument II also holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants there.
II. No. Rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities. So ?
Why offer extra incentives!
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: Clearly, government jobs in rural areas are underlined with several difficulties. In lieu of these,
extra incentives are needed. So, only argument I holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should so much money be spent on advertisements?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is an essential concomitant in a capitalist economy.
II. No. It leads to wastage of resources.
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: 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.
Q: Statement: Should all the legislators be forced to resign from their profession?
Arguments:
I. Yes. They will be able to devote more time for the country.
II. No, nobody will contest election.
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: The legislators should surely not be engaged in any other profession because only then will
they be able to work with devotion. So, argument I holds. Also, if such a law is enforced, only
those people will contest elections who are really prepared to work for the country. So,
argument II is vague.
Q: Statement: Should India engage into a dialogue with neighbouring countries to stop cross
border tension?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent
lives.
II. No. Neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still
engage in subversive activities.
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the best option, whatever be the
issue. So, argument I holds strong. Moreover, the problem indicated in II can be curbed by
constant check and vigilance. So, II seems to be vague.
Q: Statement: Should there be a world government?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will help in eliminating tensions among the nations.
II. No. Then, only the developed countries will dominate in the government.
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Both I and II are strong
Solution: Clearly, a world government cannot eliminate tensions among nations because it will also have
the ruling group and the opposition group. Further, the more powerful and diplomatic shall
rule the world to their interests. So, only argument II holds.
Q: Statement: Should the practice of transfers of clerical cadre employees from government
offices of one city to those of another be stopped?
Arguments:
I. No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.
II. Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many
compared to the benefits it yields.
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
Solution: 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.
Q: 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. Both I and II are strong
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.