Q: Statement: Should all the indirect taxes in India be combined into a single tax on all commodities? Arguments: I. Yes. This will considerably simplify the tax collection mechanism and the cost of collecting tax will also reduce. II. Yes. The manufacturers and traders will be benefited by this which in turn will boost tax collection. III. No. No other country has adopted such system.
Solution: Only I and II are strong. Clearly, both I and II hold strong, as they provide very convincing reasons, for a single tax system would help get rid of multifarious taxes on a product. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument III does not hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should there be complete ban on Indian professionals seeking jobs elsewhere after getting their education in India? Arguments: I. Yes. This is the only way to sustain present rate of technological development in India. II. No. The Indians settled abroad send huge amount of foreign exchange and this constitutes a significant part of foreign exchange reserve. III. No. The practical knowledge gained by Indians by working in other countries help India develop its economy.
Solution: Clearly, none of the arguments provides a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should there be a total ban on tobacco products and smoking in India? Arguments: I. Yes. It is wrong to smoke away millions of money. II. No. It will throw thousands of workers in the tobacco industry out of employment. III. No. The government will lose huge amount of money as it will not earn by way of taxes on these products.
Solution: Clearly, smoking needs to be abolished because it is injurious to health and not only to save money. So, argument I is vague. Banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. So, argument II holds strong. Also, tobacco products are a source of big revenue for the government. So, argument III also holds.
Q: Statement: Should administrative officers be transferred after one or two years? Arguments: I. Yes. They get friendly with local people and are manipulated by them. II. No. By the time their policies and schemes start taking shape, they have to leave. III. No. This will create a lot of administrative hassles and cause a lot of inconvenience to the officers.
Solution: Clearly, the acquaintance of administrative officers with the local people poses no harm. So, argument I is vague. However, both II and III hold strong, because making transfers too often would neither give them enough time to settle down comfortably in a new place, nor enable them to formulate and implement their policies in toto. This would also be administratively impossible.
| You Have Score | /4 |