Logical Deduction :: Statements And Arguments :: General questions

• Statements And Arguments - General questions

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement : Should mercy death be legalized,i.e. all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire ?

Arguments: I. No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through the mercy death.

III. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, mercy death will Serve as liberation to those to whom living is more difficult and painful. But then, it is an inhuman,act and does not appeal. So, both arguments II and III hold strong. Besides, it becomes our moral duty to encourage such people to live their lives to the fullest and support them through the crisis, and not demoralize them by allowing them,to die if they wish to. Hence, argument I also holds strong.

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement : Should people with educational qualifications higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?

Arguments: I.No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.

II. Yes. It creates complexity among employees and affects the work adversely.

III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals

IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.

Answer:

Explanation:

 The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increasing 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, the 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 his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statement : Should there be reservation of jobs in the organizations in the private sector also as in the public sector undertakings in India?

Arguments : I. Yes. This would give more opportunities of development to the weaker sections of the society and thus help reduce the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden in India.

II. No. The private sector does not let any government assistance and therefore they should not be saddled with such policies

III. No. Nowhere else in the world such a practice is being followed.

IV. No. The management of the private sector undertaking would not agree to such compulsions.

Answer:

Explanation:

The reservation of jobs in the private sector too would surely increase opportunities for weaker sections to improve their economic plight. Thus, argument-I is strong enough. Also, private sector companies work on a good profit margin and they can and will have to accommodate such a policy if implemented. So, neither II nor IV holds strong. Further, just imitating other countries holds no relevance. So, argument III also does not hold.

The following question consist of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

 Statement : Should all youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?

Arguments: I. No. It is not correct to prevent mature youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.

II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.

III. No. There is no such curb in western countries.

IV Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.

Answer:

Explanation:

Clearly, our constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies -that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent-guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. so, neither II nor III holds strong.

The following question consists of a statement followed by three or four arguments I,II,III & IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.

Statement: Should religion be taught in our schools?

Arguments: I. No. Ours is a secular state.

II. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.

III. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfill its role in the 21st century.

Answer:

Explanation:

Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious.values should be eradicated. In fact; these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century

• Statements And Arguments - General questions