10th Class Mental Ability Statement Analysis Statements & Argument

 

Statement & Argument

 

Statement - Argument

In this part of logical reasoning a statement concerned with a social, political or economical issue is given along with two arguments - in favour of or against the statement. A strong argument is one which says the practical and real aspect of the situation as described in the statement, while the weak argument is ambiguous, superfluous and very simple. The candidate is required to analyze first the statement, then argument in context of the statement and finally decide which of the arguments is strong and is helping and to formulate the most appropriate opinion of the subject given in statement.

 

Remember you are required to form an opinion only in the light of the given arguments and not on the basis of your own presumptions.

 

Example: 1

1.          

Statement:

Should luxury hotels be banned in big cities in India?

Arguments:

I.   No affluent foreign tourists will have no place to stay.

II. Yes these are places from where international criminal operate.

 

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (a)

Explanation: Argument I is strong because if the luxury hotels are banned in big cities in India, the affluent foreign   tourists have no place to stay. Argument II is no strong because the check on international criminals cannot be imposed through ban on luxury hotels.

 

2.       

Statement:

Should India encourage exports when most things are insufficient for internal use itself?

Arguments:

I. Yes. India has to earn foreign exchange to pay for the imports.

II. No. Even selective encouragement would lead to shortages.

 

           

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (a)

Explanation: Clearly, India can export only the surplus and that which can be saved after fulfilling its own needs to pay for its imports. Encouragement to export cannot lead to shortages as it shall provide the resources for imports. So, only argument I holds.

 

3.          

Statement:

Should the Indian railway immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees?

Arguments:

I. No. The employees have the right to travel free.

II. Yes. This will help Indian railway to provide better facility.

       

            

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (d)

Explanation: The free passes given to railway employees is a privilege for them, not their right. So, argument I does    not hold. Argument II seems to be vague.       

 

4.     

Statement:

Should telecasting feature films be stopped in India?

Arguments:

I. No. This is the only way to educate the masses.

II. Yes. Young children are misguided by the feature films.

 

           

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (d)

            Explanation: Argument I is against the statement is weak because there are other ways to educate the masses. Thus             I is not strong. Argument II is In favour of the statement but it is not valid and strong argument because the young             children learn a lot from the films.

 

Snap Test

 

1.        

Statement:

Should India engage into a dialogue with neighboring countries to stop cross border tension?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This is the effective way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent lives.

2. No. Neighboring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still engage in subversive activities.

 

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (a)

Explanation: Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the best option, whatever be the issue. So, argument I holds strong. Moreover, the problem indicated in II can be curbed by constant check and vigilance. So, 18 seems to be vague.

 

2.       

Statement:

Should India stop all its space programme immediately?

Arguments

I:  No. India must carry on space programmes to fulfil its aspirations.

II. Yes, space programmes requires huge amount of money and India is a very poor country so this money should be used to eradicate poverty.

 

(a) only argument I is strong.                   

(b) only argument II is strong.

(c) either argument I or II is strong.    

(d) neither argument I nor II is strong.

(d) both argument I and II are strong.

Ans.     (a)

Explanation: Only argument I is strong because space programme has many advantages. St helps us to fight against un education, unemployment and many other social evils. It also help us in whether forecasting and handling natural calamities like drought, flood, tsunami etc. which causes loss of huge amount of property and life every year. Argument II is weak because India is already spending huge amount of money to eradicate poverty. Moreover Unemployment is the main cause of poverty and space programme will help in generating employment.

 

3.   

       

Statement:

Should there be a complete ban on use of chemical pesticides in the agricultural fields?

Arguments:

I. No, the crops will get damaged by the pests as almost each crop is attacked by pests during its life cycle.

II. Yes, this pollutes the environment and also contaminates ground water, instead biological pesticides should be used.

 

(a) only argument I is strong.                   

(b) only argument II is strong.

(c) either argument I or II is strong            

(d) neither argument I nor II is strong.

(d) both argument I and II are strong.

Ans.     (e)

Explanation: Argument I and II, both are strong. If there is ban on the use of pesticides, the whole crop will be damaged by pests and if there is no ban on the use of pesticides, then it will pollute the environment and contaminate ground water which is fatal for us.

 

4.     

Statement:

Should there be a complete ban on sale of soft drinks within the premises of all the schools in India?

Arguments:

I. Yes, this will considerably decrease the consumption of such drinks by the school children as these contain harmful chemicals.

II. No, the authorities do not have right to impose such restrictions in a democratic country,

                         

(a) only argument I is strong.                   

(b) only argument II is strong.

(c) either argument I or II is strong.           

(d) neither argument I nor II is strong.

(e) both argument I and II are strong.                                         

Ans.     (a)                                                        

Explanation: Argument I is strong because soft drinks contain some harmful chemicals which are harmful to school children. But argument II is not strong because it is not the meaning of the democratic country that we cannot ban on wrong things.

 

5.      

Statement:

Should all the villages of India be connected by road?

Arguments:

I. No. It will disturb peaceful simple life of the people living in villages.

II. Yes. It is essential to improve the life of people living in villages.

 

(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             

(e) Both I and II are strong                                                       

Ans.     (b)                                                         

Explanation: If all the all the villages of India are connected by road, people living in villages will have easy access to the town and cities which will help them to improve their life. So argument II is strong. Argument I is vague and hence does not hold.

 

6.        

Statement:

Should India stop spending huge amount of money on international sports?

Arguments:

I. Yes. This money can be utilized for upliftment of the poor

II. No. Sports persons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure.

 

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (b)

Explanation: If India stops spending huge amounts of money on international sports, this does not mean that this money can be spent on socio-economic uplift of the society. So argument I is not strong. Argument (I is strong because if it is done, the sports persons will feel frustration and will not get the international exposure.

 

7.        

Statement:

Should the practice of transfers of clerical cadre employees from government offices of one city to those of another be stopped?

Arguments:

1. No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.

2. Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many compared to the benefits it yields.

 

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (d)

Explanation: It is not necessary that any practice which has been in vague for a long time is right and it must be continued. So, argument I is not strong. Also, a practice must be continued or discontinued in view of its merits/demerits and not on grounds of the expenditure or procedures it entails. The policy of transfer is generally practiced to do away with corruption, which is absolutely essential. So, argument II also does not hold.

 

8.         

Statement:

Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency?

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgment for casting their vote.

2. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

 

(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            

(e) Both I and II are strong                                                      

Ans.     (e)                                                         

Explanation: Clearly, if there were fewer candidates, the voters would find it easy to make a choice. So, argument I holds. Also/ every person satisfying the conditions laid  down by the Constitution must be given an opportunity and should not be denied the  same just to cut down the number of candidates. So, argument II also holds strong

 

9.   

Statement: Should ?computer knowledge? be made a compulsory subject for all the students at secondary school level?

Arguments:

1. No, our need is ?bread? for everyone, we cannot follow western models.

2. Yes. We cannot compete in the international market without equipping our children with computers.

 

            

(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              

(e) Both I and II are strong                                                         

Ans.     (b)

Explanation: Nowadays, computers have entered all walks of life and children need to be prepared for the same. So, argument II is strong. Argument I holds no relevance.

 

10.     

Statement:

Should children be legally made responsible to take care of their parents during their old age?

Arguments:

1. No. Such matter can only be solved by legal means.

2. Yes. Only this will bring some relief to poor parents.

           

(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

(e) Both I and II are strong

Ans.     (d)

Explanation: Taking care of the parents is a moral duty of the children and cannot be thrust upon them legally, nor such a compulsion can ensure good care of the old people. So, none of the arguments holds strong.