Q: Statement: Should all the profit making public sector units be sold to private companies?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This will help the government to augment its resources for implementing the
development programmes.
II. No. The private companies will not be able to run these units effectively.
III. Yes. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of services.
IV. No. There would not be job security for the employees at all the levels.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only III and IV are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: The government cannot sell off public sector units just to pool up funds for development.
Besides, if it does so, these units shall be handed over to private companies which are fully
equipped to run these units effectively. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Privatization shall
surely ensure better services, but private companies adopt hire and fire policy and they are
free to terminate the services of any employee as and when they wish to. Thus, both III and
IV hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a
beer bar?
Arguments:
I. No. It is not correct to prevent matured 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.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only III and IV are strong
D. Only I and IV are strong
Solution: 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.
Q: Statement: Should the government ban all forms of protests including strikes and
processions?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This is the only way to teach discipline to the employees.
II. No. Government cannot deprive its citizens of their basic rights.
III. Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruption of work.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: Clearly, strike is not a means of indiscipline but only a practice in which the workers exercise
their fundamental right to voice their protest against the atrocities of the management. So,
argument I is vague while II holds. Also, the option of resorting to strikes often aggravates
petty issues and disrupts work for long periods, thus affecting productivity. So, III also holds
strong.
Q: 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 mercy death.
III. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: Clearly, mercy death will serve as a 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.
Q: Statement: Should seniority be the only criterion for the promotion?
Arguments:
I. No. It would be an injustice to those juniors who are more deserving and suitable for
higher positions than their senior counterparts.
II. Yes. Otherwise senior employees do feel humiliated.
III. Yes. Senior employees are more experienced and must be rewarded for the same.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution:
Q: Statement: Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past
academic performance rather than through entrance tests?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of
entrance tests.
II. Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic
examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
III. No. The standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different Boards and
universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to
calibrate them on a common yardstick.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. Only III is strong
Solution: Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because of the
expenditure it entails. So, argument I does not hold. Also, students who are intelligent enough
to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance
tests. So, II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities
are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the
candidates to uniform test and assessment. So, only III holds strong.
Q: 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 get 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.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: 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.
Q: Statement: Should workers/employees be allowed to participate in the management of
factories in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It is the present management theory.
II. No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
III. Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
IV. No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is
vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as literacy is an essential criteria to take proper
decisions on policy matters regarding management of factories. Besides, workers, if involved
in management, would surely be motivated to work more devotedly, thus enhancing
productivity. So, both II and III follow. IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts
given in II and III. So, IV also does not hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in the matter of employment in every
field?
Arguments:
I. Yes. They are equally capable.
II. No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
III. Yes. They should also go into the outside world.
A. Only I is strong
B. Only I and III are strong
C. Only II and III are strong
D. All are strong
Solution: In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of
competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot
be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against
their will. They too have the right to be self-dependent. Besides, present-day women are well
looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while II does
not