Q: Statement: Should children be legally made responsible to take care of their parents during
their old age?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Such matter can only be solved by legal means.
II. Yes. Only this will bring some relief to poor parents.
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: 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.
Q: Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child
family?
Arguments:
I. No. This is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates
without any reservation for a particular group.
II. Yes. This will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be
encouraged to adopt single child norm.
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: The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically
backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has
no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to nonrecruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented,
will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of
it. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Q: 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
Solution: 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.
Q: 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. Both I and II are strong
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.
Q: Statement: Should government stop spending huge amounts of money on international
sports?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This money can be utilized for upliftment of the poor.
II. No. Sports persons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure.
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, spending money on sports cannot be avoided merely because it can be spent on socio economic problems. So, argument I does not hold. Also, if the expenses on sports are
curtailed, the sports persons would face lack of facilities and training and our country will lag
behind in the international sports competitions. So, II holds.
Q: Statement: Should the railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees?
Arguments:
I. No. The employees have the right to travel free.
II. Yes. This will help railways to provide better facility.
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: The free passes given to railway employees is a privilege for them, not their right. So,
argument I does not hold. Argument II seems to be vague.
Q: 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. Both I and II are strong
Solution: Clearly, such a step would help to prevent the growth of diseases like AIDS. So, only
argument II is strong.
Q: Statement: Should there be a ban on product advertising?
Arguments:
I. No. It is an age of advertising. Unless your advertisement is better than your other
competitors, the product will not be sold.
II. Yes. The money spent on advertising is very huge and it inflates the cost of the
product.
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, it is the advertisement which makes the customer aware of the qualities of the
product and leads him to buy it. So, argument I is valid. But at the same time, advertising
nowadays has become a costly affair and the expenses on it add to the price of the product.
So, argument II also holds strong.