Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should judiciary be independent of the executive ? Arguments : I. Yes, this would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive. II. No, the executive would not be able to take bold measures.
Answer: A Argument I is strong as executive should also be accountable, scrutinized. II is weak as bold measures don't propagate unlawful activities.
Q. No. 14:
Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should the fees of all the private professional colleges be made equal to those of the government professional colleges ? Arguments : I. No, the private colleges need additional funds to maintain quality of education. II. Yes, otherwise a large number of meritorious students will not be able to study in these colleges for exorbitantly high fees.
Answer: B Argument I is strong because it will be against of quality education. II is also strong because it is advocating the meritorious students. But both steps cannot be taken at the same time. Hence either I or II follows.
Q. No. 15:
Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should those who manufacture spurious life saving drugs be given capital punishment ? Arguments : I. No, nobody has the right to take people's life as we cannot give life to anybody. II. Yes, those people are more dangerous than those who are convinced for homicide as the extent of damage to human life is incalculable.
Answer: C Argument I is weak because it will encourage spurious life saving drugs manufacturer. II is strong argument because it advocates to save human life. Hence only argument II is strong.
Q. No. 16:
Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should there be a restriction on number of ministers in each cabinet in India ? Arguments : I. Yes, as a result of this a lot, of money will be saves and the same can be used in developmental programmes. II. No, there should be such restrictions on democratically elected representatives and it should be left to the judgement of the leader of the council of ministers.
Answer: A Argument I is strong because it will be helpful to save money and progress of country. II is the wrong argument. Hence only argument I follows.
Q. No. 17:
Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should the press in India be given full freedom ? Arguments : I. Yes, because only then people will become politically enlightened. II. No, because full freedom to press will create problems.
Answer: A Freedom of press can be helpful to understand the people's needs, a situation etc. So I is strong argument. Argument II does not explain that which kind of problems. So it is weak argument.
Q. No. 18:
Each of the questions consists of a statement, followed by two arguments
I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong'
argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement : Should there be only one rate of interest for term deposits of varying durations in banks ? Arguments : I. No, people will refrain money for longer duration resulting into reduction of liquidity level of banks. II. Yes, this will be much simpler for the common people and they many be encouraged to keep more money in banks.
Answer: D I is weak argument. It is not correlated with the statement. II is also weak because how can common people be encouraged from one rate of interest.