Strong & Weak Arguments Test-1

Argument I: Yes, these are very cheap and hence will put the local toy manufacturers out of business.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the impact of cheap Chinese toys on local manufacturers, suggesting that their low cost could harm Indian businesses by making it difficult for them to compete. This is a strong argument as it addresses a significant economic concern regarding the sustainability of local industry, which is directly relevant to the question.

Argument II: No, Indian toys are of much better quality and their sale will not be affected.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that the quality of Indian toys will protect them from competition with Chinese toys, implying that there is no need for a ban. It counters the idea that local businesses would suffer due to competition from cheaper imports, making it relevant to the question. This is a strong argument as it addresses the quality and competitive position of Indian products.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address different but relevant aspects of the issue —one concerning economic impact on local manufacturers, and the other on product quality and competition.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, this will substantially reduce the work of the officials of the income tax department.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that a uniform tax rate would simplify the work of tax officials. While reducing administrative complexity is beneficial, this argument does not address the main considerations of income tax policy, such as fairness, equity, or the impact on government revenue. Thus, it is a weak argument, as it focuses on a minor operational aspect rather than the broader implications.

Argument II: No, this will reduce Govt. tax collection to a large extent.

• Analysis: This argument highlights a significant issue: a uniform tax rate could lead to reduced government revenue, especially if high-income earners are taxed at the same rate as low-income earners. This could impact public services and government funding. This is a strong argument because it addresses a critical consequence of the policy change, directly related to the financial viability of government operations.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it considers the substantial impact of a uniform tax rate on government revenue.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, in many developed countries there are only two political parties.

• Analysis: This argument points out that some developed countries have a two-party system, but it doesn ’t provide a strong rationale for why India should adopt this model. The political structure of a country depends on various factors, including cultural, social, and historical contexts, which are different in India. Therefore, this argument is weak, as it doesn ’t address whether or why a two-party system would be suitable or beneficial for India specifically.

Argument II: No, Indian electorate is not mature to select between only two political parties.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that the Indian electorate may not be ready for a two-party system, but it doesn ’t explain why this is the case or why a multi-party system is better suited to India ’s diverse electorate. The argument is weak because it lacks a clear and substantial reasoning to support the idea of retaining multiple parties.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak, as they do not directly address the suitability of a two-party system for India with solid reasoning.

Answer: D (if neither argument I nor II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, this will substantially reduce consumption of tobacco products.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that limiting the number of outlets selling tobacco could make it less accessible, potentially decreasing consumption. This is directly related to the public health goal of reducing tobacco use and is a strong argument, as it addresses a significant potential benefit of restricting sales.

Argument II: No, those who want to purchase tobacco products should get them at convenient locations.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes convenience for consumers, but it does not address the broader issue of health or social benefits. Convenience, while relevant, is a comparatively minor consideration when weighed against the potential health benefits of reduced tobacco consumption. This makes it a weaker argument.

Conclusion: Only Argument I is strong, as it directly relates to the significant public health objective of reducing tobacco consumption.

Answer: A (if only argument I is strong).

Argument I: Yes, the prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that prestigious individuals may not intentionally commit crimes, but it does not provide a justification for why they should receive special treatment if they do so unknowingly. Unintentional crime is not exclusive to prestigious people, and the argument does not address why their status should exempt them from standard legal treatment. This makes the argument weak, as it lacks direct relevance to the principle of equal legal accountability.

Argument II: No, it is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.

• Analysis: This argument supports the principle of equality before the law, emphasizing that everyone, regardless of their status, should be treated the same under legal standards. This is a strong argument, as it is directly related to the foundational legal principle that upholds fairness and justice, which is critical in this context.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it upholds the important legal principle of equality before the law.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, those who violate the law must be punished.

• Analysis: This argument directly supports the enforcement of the law, asserting that anyone who violates legal prohibitions should face consequences. This is a strong argument because it reinforces the principle of upholding the law and the need for accountability, which is directly related to the question of punishing dowry recipients.

Argument II: No, dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that dowry is deeply ingrained in society but does not provide a reason for why those who accept dowry should not be punished. Tradition alone does not justify breaking the law, especially in cases where the law exists to prevent harm and promote social justice. Therefore, this is a weak argument, as it does not directly address the question of legal enforcement.

Conclusion: Only Argument I is strong, as it provides a clear rationale based on the importance of enforcing the law.

Answer: A (if only argument I is strong).

Argument I: Yes, this exists in some of the western countries.

• Analysis: This argument merely points out that a single type of school system exists in some Western countries, but it does not provide a reason why such a system would be beneficial or suitable for India. The argument lacks direct relevance to the specific needs and conditions of Indian society. Therefore, this is a weak argument.

Argument II: No, schools in rural and urban areas need to be different.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the practical consideration that rural and urban areas have different educational needs, resources, and challenges. For example, rural areas may require different approaches to infrastructure, curriculum, and accessibility compared to urban areas. This makes the argument strong, as it directly addresses an important aspect of why a one-size-fits-all school system may not be effective across diverse regions.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it considers the specific needs of different areas within the country.

Answer: B (if only argument II is strong).

Argument I: Yes, the Government can earn a huge amount of money by imposing tax on the amount involved in gambling as people otherwise gamble illegally.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the potential financial benefit to the government through taxation on legal gambling. It suggests that legalization could help control the gambling industry, prevent illegal activities, and provide a source of revenue. This is a strong argument because it directly addresses a potential advantage of legalization that could benefit public funds and improve regulation.

Argument II: No, some individuals might misuse their earnings on gambling if it ’s legalized, which could cause issues for them and their families.

• Analysis: This argument raises a valid concern about the potential negative impact of gambling on individuals and families, including financial strain and addiction. However, it does not directly address the overall feasibility or regulation of gambling but instead highlights a possible misuse of legalization. While relevant, this argument is relatively weaker because it focuses on individual behavior rather than the larger impact on society or the feasibility of controlled legalization.

Conclusion: Argument I is strong, as it addresses a significant economic benefit and regulatory advantage. Argument II, while raising a valid concern, is less directly related to the question ’s broader implications.

Answer: E (if only argument I is strong).

Argument I: Yes, most of the children, particularly the teenagers, are found indulging in accessing pornographic contents.

• Analysis: This argument points out a concern that some teenagers may misuse Internet access to view inappropriate content. While this is a relevant concern, it focuses on only one aspect of Internet usage without considering broader educational or social impacts. While this argument is valid in expressing a risk associated with unrestricted Internet access, it does not necessarily justify a complete denial of access, as there could be other methods of control. Thus, this argument is moderately strong but somewhat narrow in scope.

Argument II: No, denying access to the Internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information; instead, the access may be controlled.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the significant educational and informational value of the Internet, suggesting a more balanced approach —controlling rather than denying access. It addresses the importance of the Internet as a resource for learning and development, making it a strong argument as it proposes an alternative solution that considers both benefits and potential risks.

Conclusion: Argument II is strong as it considers both the benefits and risks, suggesting controlled access rather than a complete denial. Argument I is moderately strong but limited in scope as it focuses primarily on one risk. However, both arguments address important aspects of the issue.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).

Argument I: Yes, with this the students falling in a particular range of marks can be treated on par.

• Analysis: This argument supports the grading system by suggesting that it allows students within a specific score range to be grouped together, reducing the focus on minor mark differences. This approach can help reduce unhealthy competition and may promote a more balanced view of student performance. This is a strong argument, as it highlights a key benefit of grading that is directly related to the question.

Argument II: No, it will be difficult to rank the students when required to be short-listed.

• Analysis: This argument points out a practical challenge with the grading system, as it may make it harder to differentiate between students within the same grade bracket for purposes like admissions or job placements. This is also a strong argument, as it addresses a significant drawback of the grading system in situations where precise ranking is necessary.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as each addresses important and directly relevant aspects of switching to a grading system —one focusing on the benefits of fairer assessment, and the other on the challenges in ranking students.

Answer: E (if both arguments I and II are strong).