Q: Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present? Arguments: I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources. II. Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay. III. No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.
Solution: The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
Q: Statement: Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world. II. Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further? III. Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time. IV. No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.
Solution: Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold
Q: Statement: Should the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike be enforced strictly? Arguments: I. Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all. II. No. Each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion. III. No. It does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and rest of the body is not. IV. Yes. It is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.
Solution: Clearly, the rule has been devised for the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this requires strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the discretion of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should all the students graduating in any discipline desirous of pursuing postgraduation of the subjects of their choice be allowed to enrol in the post-graduate courses? Arguments: I. Yes. The students are the best judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses. II. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enrol in postgraduate courses and the students must fulfil such conditions. III. No. There are not enough institutes offering post-graduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.
Solution: Only argument II is strong. The students cannot be enrolled in the courses just on the basis of their interests, but their compatibility with the same also matters. So, I does not hold. Besides, lack of institutes is no criteria to deny post-graduate courses to students. So, argument III also does not hold. II provides a genuine reason and thus holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should we impart sex education in schools? Arguments: I. Yes. All the progressive nations do so. II. No. We cannot impart it in co-educational schools. III. Yes. It would certainly help in eradicating the existing misunderstanding and make the younger generation physically and mentally healthier. IV. It will destroy the moral fibre and the highly esteemed value system which we have inherited from our forefathers.
Solution: Only II and III are strong. Clearly, the pursuance of a policy in India cannot be based on the pretext that it is followed in other countries because every country has its own environment and situations. So, argument I is vague. Also, imparting sex education in co-educational schools where boys and girls study together, could spoil the atmosphere there and hinder the studies. So, argument II is strong. However, sex education in schools can help students remove their misconceptions and doubts at a stage, when they would otherwise hesitate to discuss the same with others. Also, sex forms an integral part of the future life of the students and knowledge regarding the same, is nothing degenerative and shameful. So, argument III holds strong, while IV does not.
Q: Statement: Should coal engines be replaced by electric engines in trains? Arguments: I. Yes. Coal engines cause a lot of pollution. II. Yes. Electric engines are good on performance, easy to operate and low on maintenance. III. No. India does not produce enough electricity to fulfil its domestic needs also.
Solution: Clearly, electric engines shall be smoke-free and thus not cause pollution as the coal engines. They also run at higher speeds and perform better. Thus, both I and II hold strong. Argument III does not provide a convincing reason and hence does not hold strong.
| You Have Score | /6 |