Q: Statement: Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary/
Legislative Assembly elections?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 lose their dynamism and will power.
II. No. The life span is so increased that people remain physically and mentally active
even up to the age of 80.
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
Solution: The age of a person is no criterion for judging his mental capabilities and administrative
qualities. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will create job opportunities.
II. No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.
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
Solution: Opening up of new industries is advantageous in opening more employment avenues, and
disadvantageous in that it adds to the pollution. So, either of the arguments holds strong.
Q: Statement: Should high chimneys be installed in industries?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.
II. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.
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
Solution: Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and
animal life. So, argument I alone holds.
Q: Statement: Does India need so many plans for development?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Nothing can be achieved without proper planning.
II. No. Too much time, money and energy is wasted on planning.
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
Solution: Before indulging in new development programme it is much necessary to plan the exact
target, policies and their implementation and the allocation of funds which shows the right
direction to work. So, argument I holds strong. Also, planning ensures full utilization of
available resources and funds and stepwise approach towards the target. So, spending a part
of money on it is no wastage. Thus, argument II is not valid.
Q: Statement: Should articles of only deserving authors be allowed to be published?
Arguments:
I. Yes. It will save a lot of paper which is in short supply.
II. No. It is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving
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
Solution: Clearly, I does not provide a strong reason in support of the statement. Also, it is not possible
to analyze the really deserving and not deserving. So/argument II holds strong.
Q: . Statement: Can pollution be controlled?
Arguments:
I. Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it,
pollution may be controlled.
II. No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population
eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.
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
Solution: The control of pollution, on one hand, seems to be impossible because of the ever-growing
needs and the disconcern of the people but, on the other hand, the control is possible by a
joint effort. So, either of the arguments will hold strong.
Q: Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.
II. No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.
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
Solution: Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds
because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend
personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of
teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument
II is vague.