## Reasoning Quiz On Statement and Argument Day 21 Bag

#### Get English,Quant & Reasoning Tricks Book – Buy Now

Each of the following questions consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II.
(A) If only argument I is strong
(B) If only argument II is strong
(C) If either I or II is strong
(D) If neither I nor II is strong and
(E) If both I and II are strong.

1. 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
e.  Both I and II are strong

2. Statement : Should number of holidays of government employees be reduced ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Our government employees are having maximum number of holidays among the other countries of the world.
II. Yes. It will lead to increased productivity of government offices.
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
e.   Both I and II are strong

3. Statement : Should there be reservation of seats and posts on communal basis ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will check most of the inter-communal biases.
II. No. Ours is a secular state.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

4. Statement : Should government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This money can be utilised for 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.  Neither I nor II is strong
e.  Both I and II are strong

5. Statement : Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14 ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of children.
II. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

6. Statement : Should the tuition fees in all post graduate courses be hiked considerably ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will bring some kind of seriousness among the students and will improve quality.
II. No. This will force the meritorious poor students to stay away from post-graduate courses.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

7. Statement: Should students union in universities be abolished ?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Students can pay full attention to their career development.
II. No. All the great leaders had been students union leaders.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

8. Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India?
Arguments:
I. No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country.
II. Yes. It is democracy – let people decide whom to vote.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

9. Statement: Should cutting of trees be banned altogether?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is very much necessary to do so to restore ecological balance.
II. No. A total ban would harm timber based industries.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

10. Statement: Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
II. No. It will lead to an end of democracy.
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
e.  Both I and II are strong

Answer Key And Explanation:

1. (D)

(Explanation:The free passes given to railway employees is a privilege for them, not their right.           So, argument I does not hol   Argument II seems to be vague.

2.(B)

3.(B)

4.(B)

(Explanation: Clearly spending money on sports can not be avoided merely for social economic            problems. But Argument II is strong. Be a sports man and then think on this question. 🙂

5.(D)

6.(B)

(Explanation: Clearly seriousness among the students is not because of fees but second argument is strong.

7.(A)

8.(A)

(Explanation: Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the                     representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not

9.(E)

10.(D)(Explanation: Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.

Directions (6-10): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

Instructions:

In each of the following a question is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which argument is strong and which argument is weak. Give answer

(1) if only argument I is strong.

(2) if only argument II is strong.

(3) if either argument I or II is strong.

(4) if neither argument I nor II is strong.

(5) if both the arguments I and II are strong.

1.     Statement:

Should the existing labour laws be changed in the favour of owners?

Arguments:

1. Yes, the existing labour laws give much more protection to employees than required and thus production is reduced.
2. No, because owners would exploit employees as before when there were no labour laws.
3.    Statement:

Should India acquire/manufacture the latest nuclear weapons?

Arguments:

1. Yes, the enemies of India are improving their weapons continuously.
2. No, it will be against our policy of maintaining world peace.
3. Statement:

Should animals be killed in the name of laboratory experiment?

Argument:

1. Yes, they are available in abundance.
2. No, we have been supporting non-violence on every step of our lives.
3.    Statement:

Should the prestigious people be met with special treatment by law if they have committed crime unknowingly?

Arguments:

1. Yes, because the prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.
2. No, it is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.
3. Statement:

Should mutual funds be brought under stricter Government control?

Arguments:

1. Yes, that is one of the ways to protect the interest of the investors.
2. No, stricter Government controls are likely to be counterproductive.ANSWERS:
3. 5
4. 1
5. 4
6. 2
7. 1

Directions (Q. 1-5): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments insofar as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a “strong” argument and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer

(a) If only argument I is “strong”.

(b) If only argument II is “strong”.

(c) If either I or II is “strong”.

(d) If neither I nor II is “strong”.

(e) If both I and II are “strong”.

Q1. Statement: Should legal professionals of India have the right to go on strike?

Arguments:

1. No, India is already facing a backlog of about three crore cases countrywide due to frequent strikes of lawyers. Another strike will only enhance the grievances of the aggrieved clients.
2. Yes, legal professionals are also a part of our society. If they feel that their dignity, independence and integrity has been lowered, strike would be the only meaningful weapon for them.

I is strong because the backlog is a cause for concern. II is not strong because it is difficult to believe that strike is “the only meaningful weapon” to achieve the said objective.

Q2. Statement: Should there be a free phone service for children in distress?

Arguments:

1. Yes, child is the father of man.
2. No, this will be misused by children.

I is not strong because it is not directly related to our core issue. II is also not strong because this is based on a wrong notion.

Q3. Statement: Should citizens of India have the right to access information from the government?

Arguments:

1. Yes, more than twenty countries have equipped their citizens with the right to access information from their respective governments.
2. Yes, the move would provide openness in government functioning and ensure transparency and accountability in it.

I is not strong because we can’t correlate the facilities provided to the citizens of other countries with the facilities provided to Indian citizens. II is strong because this is will ensure smooth functioning of the government.

Q4. Statement: Should a rapist be sentenced to life imprisonment in India?

Arguments:

1. Yes, there is an enormous increase in incidence of rape and crime against women all over India and the existing provisions for punishment are not so stringent that the cases of rapes can be reduced.
2. Yes, punishment for rape should be more than that for murder as the rape victim suffers for her entire life.

I is strong because stringent punishment is a good course of action to put restriction on the number of cases of rapes. II is also strong on the ground of impact of the crime on the life of the victim.

Q5. Statement: Should proliferation of credit cards in the country be restricted?

Arguments:

1. Yes, the facility provided through it makes a person spendthrift.
2. No, the facility provided through it makes the cardholder high-tech.

Both the argument focus on trivial aspects. Hence, both I and II are weak arguments.

Directions (Q. 6-10): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments insofar as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a “strong” argument and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer

(a) If only argument I is “strong”.

(b) If only argument II is “strong”.

(c) If either I or II is “strong”.

(d) If neither I nor II is “strong”.

(e) If both I and II are “strong”.

Q6. Statement: Should Antipiracy Bill be brought in the Parliament?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will help the film industry to fight against piracy as a result of which the industry will be financially strong.
2. No, We have already provisions such as Copyright laws etc to fight against piracy.

Only I is strong. II is not strong because we do not know whether the existing provisions are sufficient or not.

Q7. Statement: Should Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be entitled to dual citizenship?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will bolster the intimacy of the NRIs with the Indian soil.
2. No, The move will not be fruitful for all NRIs because there is lack of provisions for dual citizenship in many countries.

I is not strong because intimacy of NRIs with Indian soil will be helpful for Indian economy. II is a weak argument because a move can’t be restricted only because the move is not giving benefit to all of a kind.

Q8. Statement: Should reputed private driver training schools be allowed to issue driving licences?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will enable more and more people to get driving licences.
2. No, This will increase the congestion of the vehicles on the road and will result in traffic jams too.

I is weak because it is not desirable. Moreover, is falsely assumes that govt authorities can’t cope with the demand of driving hiences. II is weak because it is not logical. It wrongly assumes that such a move will lead to a spurt in the number of vehicles.

Q9. Statement: Should a trouble-born state like Jammu & Kashmir release separatist leaders without any condition?

Arguments:

1. Yes, Release of separatist leaders will be useful as a goodwill gesture to make the situation peaceful in the state.
2. No, Unconditional release of the separatist leaders will aggravate the existing situation because these leaders have not shown any flexibility in their views.

I is strong because it will encourage non-violence and will make the environment conducive for peace. II is also strong because effort from early one side will not necessarily usher in desirable result. But the state can’t be both more and less peaceful at the same time. Hence either I or II follows.

Q10. Statement: Should power theft be made a cognizable offence?

Arguments:

1. Yes, People do not use power honestly.
2. No, This will be a wise decision and will reduce anti-social activities in society.

Both I and II are weak arguments.
Directions (Q. 1-5): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments insofar as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a “strong” argument and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer

(a) If only argument I is “strong”.

(b) If only argument II is “strong”.

(c) If either I or II is “strong”.

(d) If neither I nor II is “strong”.

(e) If both I and II are “strong”.

1. Statement: Should legal professionals of India have the right to go on strike?

Arguments:

1. No, India is already facing a backlog of about three crore cases countrywide due to frequent strikes of lawyers. Another strike will only enhance the grievances of the aggrieved clients.
2. Yes, legal professionals are also a part of our society. If they feel that their dignity, independence and integrity has been lowered, strike would be the only meaningful weapon for them.Answer:
(a) I is strong because the backlog is a cause for concern. II is not strong because it is difficult to believe that strike is “the only meaningful weapon” to achieve the said objective.
3. Statement: Should there be a free phone service for children in distress?

Arguments:

1. Yes, child is the father of man.
2. No, this will be misused by children.Answer:
(d) I is not strong because it is not directly related to our core issue. II is also not strong because this is based on a wrong notion.
3. Statement:Should citizens of India have the right to access information from the government?

Arguments:

1. Yes, more than twenty countries have equipped their citizens with the right to access information from their respective governments.
2. Yes, the move would provide openness in government functioning and ensure transparency and accountability in it.Answer:
(b) I is not strong because we can’t correlate the facilities provided to the citizens of other countries with the facilities provided to Indian citizens. II is strong because this is will ensure smooth functioning of the government.
3. Statement:Should a rapist be sentenced to life imprisonment in India?

Arguments:

1. Yes, there is an enormous increase in incidence of rape and crime against women all over India and the existing provisions for punishment are not so stringent that the cases of rapes can be reduced.
2. Yes, punishment for rape should be more than that for murder as the rape victim suffers for her entire life.Answer:
(e) I is strong because stringent punishment is a good course of action to put restriction on the number of cases of rapes. II is also strong on the ground of impact of the crime on the life of the victim.
3. Statement: Should proliferation of credit cards in the country be restricted?

Arguments:

1. Yes, the facility provided through it makes a person spendthrift.
2. No, the facility provided through it makes the cardholder high-tech.Answer:
(d) Both the argument focus on trivial aspects. Hence, both I and II are weak arguments.

Directions (Q. 6-10): In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments insofar as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question.

Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a “strong” argument and which is a “weak” argument. Give answer

(a) If only argument I is “strong”.

(b) If only argument II is “strong”.

(c) If either I or II is “strong”.

(d) If neither I nor II is “strong”.

(e) If both I and II are “strong”.

1. Statement:Should Anti-piracy Bill be brought in the Parliament?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will help the film industry to fight against piracy as a result of which the industry will be financially strong.
2. No, We have already provisions such as Copyright laws etc to fight against piracy.Answer:
(a) Only I is strong. II is not strong because we do not know whether the existing provisions are sufficient or not.
3. Statement: Should Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be entitled to dual citizenship?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will bolster the intimacy of the NRIs with the Indian soil.
2. No, The move will not be fruitful for all NRIs because there is lack of provisions for dual citizenship in many countries.Answer:
(a) I is not strong because intimacy of NRIs with Indian soil will be helpful for Indian economy. II is a weak argument because a move can’t be restricted only because the move is not giving benefit to all of a kind.
3. Statement:Should reputed private driver training schools be allowed to issue driving licences?

Arguments:

1. Yes, This will enable more and more people to get driving licences.
2. No, This will increase the congestion of the vehicles on the road and will result in traffic jams too.Answer:
(d) I is weak because it is not desirable. Moreover, is falsely assumes that govt authorities can’t cope with the demand of driving sciences. II is weak because it is not logical. It wrongly assumes that such a move will lead to a spurt in the number of vehicles.
3. Statement: Should a trouble-born state like Jammu & Kashmir release separatist leaders without any condition?

Arguments:

1. Yes, Release of separatist leaders will be useful as a goodwill gesture to make the situation peaceful in the state.
2. No, Unconditional release of the separatist leaders will aggravate the existing situation because these leaders have not shown any flexibility in their views.Answer:
(c) I is strong because it will encourage non-violence and will make the environment conducive for peace. II is also strong because effort from early one side will not necessarily usher in desirable result. But the state can’t be both more and less peaceful at the same time. Hence either I or II follows.
3. Statement: Should power theft be made a cognizable offence?

Arguments:

1. Yes, People do not use power honestly.
2. No, This will be a wise decision and will reduce anti-social activities in society.