Q: Statement: Is caste-based reservation policy in professional colleges justified? Arguments: I. Yes. The step is a must to bring the underprivileged at par with the privileged ones. II. No. It obstructs the establishment of a classless society. III. Yes. This will help the backward castes and classes of people to come out of the oppression of upper caste people.
Solution: Clearly, capability is an essential criteria for a profession and reservation cannot ensure capable workers. So, neither I nor III holds strong. However, making one caste more privileged than the other through reservations would hinder the objectives of a classless society. So, argument II holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should there be a complete ban on genetically modified imported seeds? Arguments: I. Yes. This will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds. II. No. This is the only way to increase production substantially. III. Yes. Genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products.
Solution: Genetically modified imported seeds have been specially formulated to increase the yield and quality of produce. So, argument II is strong. Besides, increase in production holds much more significance than the sale of domestically produced seeds. Thus, argument I does not hold. Also, the genetically modified seeds result in a producer of finer quality which is no way harmful to the consumer. So, III also does not hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should the income generated out of agricultural activities be taxed? Arguments: I. No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed. II. Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources. III. Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
Solution: Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should all the management institutes in the country be brought under government control? Arguments: I. No. The government does not have adequate resources to run such institutes effectively. II. No. Each institute should be given freedom to function on its own. III. Yes. This will enable to have standardized education for all the students. IV. Yes. Only then the quality of education would be improved.
Solution: Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide any convincing reason. Also, it is not obligatory that government control over the institutes would ensure better education than that at present. So, both III and IV also do not hold.
Q: Statement: Should the system of Lok Adalats and mobile courts be encouraged in India? Arguments: I. Yes. It helps to grant speedy justice to the masses. II. Yes. The dispensing of minor cases at this level would reduce the burden on the higher courts. III. No. These courts are usually partial in justice.
Solution: Courts are meant to judge impartially. So, argument III is vague. The system of local courts shall speed up justice by providing easy approach and simplified procedures, and thus ease the burden of the higher courts. So, I as well as II holds strong
Q: Statement: Should India acquire/manufacture the latest nuclear weapons? Arguments: I. Yes. The enemies of India are improving their weapons continuously and it becomes imperative to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. II. No. Instead the money should be diverted to development activities. III. No. The international community will isolate Indians and this will bring a setback to Indian economy. IV. No. It will be against our policy of maintaining world peace.
Solution: Clearly, in the blind race for attaining nuclear powers, acquiring nuclear weapons is an inevitability to protect the country from the threat of nuclear powers. So, argument I holds strong. Also, defence of the country is as important as internal development. So, II does not hold. Argument III seems to be vague. Also, India intends to acquire nuclear weapons for selfdefence and not aggression. So, argument IV also does not hold
Q: Statement: Should there be a complete ban on manufacture and use of firecrackers? Arguments: I. No. This will render thousands of workers jobless. II. Yes. The firecracker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent. III. Yes. This will be a concrete step to reduce noise and air pollution. IV. No. Use of firecrackers makes certain special occasions more lively and joyful.
Solution: Clearly, banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. Besides, firecrackers on burning produce explosive sounds and immense poisonous fumes, which cause both air and noise pollution. So, both arguments I and HI hold. However, to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close down the industry but strict laws against child abuse should be enforced and legal actions taken. Similarly, there are many other ways to make parties boisterous and special events enjoyable. Hence, II as well as IV does not hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should "literacy" be the minimum criterion for becoming a voter in India? Arguments: I. No. Mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity of an individual. II. Yes. Illiterate people are less likely to make politically wiser decisions of voting for a right candidate or party. III. No. Voting is the constitutional right of every citizen.
Solution: Clearly, illiterate people lack will power and maturity in thoughts. They may easily be misled into false convictions or lured into temptations to vote for a particular group. So, argument II holds. However, a person is literate does not mean that he is conscious of all political movements, which requires practical awareness of everyday events. Thus, I also holds strong. Besides, Constitution has extended the right to vote equally to all its citizens. Hence, III also holds.
| You Have Score | /8 |