Strong & Weak Arguments Test-2

Argument I: Yes, in shopping malls one can get everything under one roof at a cheaper rate.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the convenience and potential cost savings for consumers that shopping malls can provide by offering a wide variety of goods in one location. It is relevant because it addresses a benefit of malls that could be appealing to shoppers and city planners. This is a strong argument as it directly relates to the advantages that malls can offer in terms of accessibility and pricing.

Argument II: No, it will not be convenient for many people to go to a shopping mall for purchases of day-to-day requirements.

• Analysis: This argument points out a potential drawback of shopping malls, particularly for individuals who may rely on smaller, local shops for their daily needs. It suggests that the closure of smaller shops could inconvenience those who prefer or need closer access to daily essentials. This is a strong argument as it directly addresses a significant disadvantage of encouraging shopping malls at the expense of small shops.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as each addresses a critical consideration in the decision —one focusing on the benefits of shopping malls and the other on the accessibility and convenience of smaller shops.

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

Argument I: Yes, it is necessary for dealing with people from the educationally backward strata of society.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that knowledge of Hindi would help employees communicate with individuals from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it does not consider whether these interactions could be managed through other means, such as hiring specific staff fluent in Hindi or providing translators. Additionally, it doesn ’t address whether making Hindi compulsory for all employees is the most effective or necessary solution. Thus, this argument is relatively weak as it doesn ’t fully support the need for compulsory Hindi knowledge for all employees.

Argument II: No, it is not necessary for every employee to have the knowledge of the Hindi language.

• Analysis: This argument points out that it may not be essential for all public sector employees to know Hindi, likely because some employees may not interact directly with the public or may serve in regions where other languages are more prevalent. This is a strong argument as it questions the practicality of a blanket requirement and acknowledges the diversity of roles and linguistic needs in public sector organizations.

Conclusion: Only Argument II is strong, as it provides a reasonable perspective on the impracticality of mandating Hindi language knowledge for all employees.

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

Argument I: No, instead the thickness of plastic bags, which can be used without much damage to the environment, should be specified.

• Analysis: This argument suggests a middle-ground approach, proposing regulation rather than an outright ban. By increasing the thickness of plastic bags, it may make them more durable and reusable, potentially reducing waste. This is a strong argument because it provides an alternative solution to address environmental concerns without a complete ban, making it directly relevant and important to the question.

Argument II: Yes, use of plastic bags causes various problems like water pollution and water-logging, and hence it is necessary to ban it.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the environmental problems caused by plastic bags, including water pollution and water-logging, which are significant issues. It supports the idea of a total ban as a necessary step to mitigate these environmental impacts. This is a strong argument as it addresses the direct consequences of plastic bag usage on the environment, which is a core consideration in the policy decision.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address different but significant aspects of the issue —one proposes regulation as an alternative, and the other supports a ban based on environmental harm.

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

Argument I: No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that merit should be the sole criterion for government jobs, without special reservations. However, it does not specifically address the unique case of single-child families or consider potential social or demographic reasons for the reservation policy. Since it lacks direct relevance to the specific group in question (single-child families) and focuses broadly on reservations, it is a weak argument.

Argument II: Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt a single-child norm.

• Analysis: This argument implies that offering reservation in jobs could act as an incentive for families to adopt a single-child norm. However, there is little evidence that such a reservation policy would significantly impact family planning decisions. This connection is tenuous, making the argument weak as it is not directly and practically relevant to the question of job reservations for single-child families.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak because they either fail to directly address the specific policy question or lack a practical basis.

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

Argument I: Yes, it will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kickstart some ‘self-employment ’venture.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that an unemployment allowance could be a positive financial support, helping youth while they search for jobs or even enabling them to start their own ventures. This is a strong argument because it addresses a potential benefit of the policy, providing direct support for individuals in need and encouraging productive use of the allowance.

Argument II: No, it will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.

• Analysis: This argument raises the concern that giving an allowance might reduce the motivation to seek work actively, potentially leading to dependency or promoting idleness. This is also a strong argument as it addresses a possible unintended consequence of the policy, which is crucial for evaluating the potential impact on society and youth behavior.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they address significant and directly related concerns about the potential effects of an unemployment allowance.

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

Argument I: Yes, they must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that scientists should prioritize national service over personal or professional achievements. However, it does not address practical considerations, such as how their work abroad might contribute to India 's reputation, international collaboration, or the advancement of science globally. Additionally, expecting scientists to disregard career growth and resources is unrealistic and does not address core issues related to the policy. This makes it a weak argument.

Argument II: No, we have enough talent, let them stay where they want.

• Analysis: This argument asserts that there is no need to recall scientists, as there is already sufficient talent in India. However, it doesn ’t address whether Indian scientists abroad could bring valuable experience, networks, or skills back to India, nor does it address the potential benefits of their contributions from abroad. This makes the argument weak, as it does not engage with the primary question ’s implications.

Conclusion: Both arguments are weak, as they fail to address key aspects relevant to the decision of calling scientists back to India, such as the potential benefits or drawbacks of their work abroad for India.

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

Argument I:Yes, it is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.

• Analysis: This argument suggests that because non-vegetarian food is costly, it is not affordable for many people. However, this reasoning is weak because the expense of non-vegetarian food does not justify a ban; affordability issues don 't make a strong case for banning something altogether. Many other products are also expensive, yet they aren ’t banned just for being costly.
• Conclusion: This is a weak argument as it lacks relevance to the main question of whether a ban is necessary for reasons beyond cost.

Argument II:No, nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.

• Analysis: This argument highlights that in a democratic country, citizens should have the freedom to make personal choices, including dietary preferences. This directly addresses the question by appealing to the principle of individual rights and freedoms in a democracy.
• Conclusion: This is a strong argument because it presents a relevant and significant reason for opposing the ban, based on democratic values.

Correct Answer:
The correct answer is: (b) if only argument II is strong.

Arguments:

1. Argument I: "No, Kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India."

   • Analysis: While this argument points out the beauty of Kashmir and its economic contribution to India, it does not engage with the political, historical, or strategic significance of the territory. The aesthetic and economic factors are secondary to the larger issues at play in the territorial dispute. It may be considered a trivial aspect of the question since it focuses on beauty and economic gain without addressing the more pressing geopolitical concerns.

2. Argument II: "Yes, this would help settle conflicts."

   • Analysis: This argument suggests that giving away Kashmir could lead to a resolution of ongoing conflicts. However, it lacks specificity and does not provide a clear rationale for why this would effectively lead to peace. The assumption that this action would automatically lead to conflict resolution is overly simplistic and does not take into account the complexities of Indo-Pak relations. It does not provide strong evidence or reasoning to support the claim, making it weak.

Conclusion:

Given the analyses:

• Argument I is weak because it focuses on superficial qualities and economic aspects that do not address the core issues of territorial integrity or national security.
• Argument II is also weak because it presents an oversimplified view of a complex issue without strong supporting arguments.

Thus, both arguments fail to provide strong reasoning related to the question of whether India should give away Kashmir.

Final Answer:

Therefore, the answer is (a) if neither argument I nor II is strong.

Argument I: No, correspondence courses help needy students to pursue studies and earn at the same time.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes the accessibility and flexibility that correspondence courses provide, especially for students who need to work while studying. This is a significant consideration as it addresses the financial and logistical barriers to education that correspondence courses can help overcome. Thus, it is a strong argument, directly related to the question and important for those who might rely on such courses.

Argument II: Yes, quality education is not possible without teachers and classrooms.

• Analysis: This argument highlights concerns about the quality of education in correspondence courses, arguing that the absence of a classroom setting and direct teacher interaction may hinder the educational experience. This is directly related to the quality aspect of education and is an important factor to consider when debating the continuation of correspondence courses. Therefore, it is also a strong argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they each provide critical perspectives on accessibility and quality in the context of graduate-level correspondence courses.

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

Argument I: Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.

• Analysis: This argument emphasizes that uniforms may create a cohesive and professional environment in colleges, as uniforms can help ensure that students are dressed in a way that is perceived as decent and appropriate. This is directly related to the question of implementing uniforms, as it addresses one of the potential benefits of such a policy. Therefore, it is a strong argument.

Argument II: No, college students should not be regimented, and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to college.

• Analysis: This argument highlights the importance of autonomy and freedom of expression for college students, which is often valued as part of their transition to adulthood. It directly addresses a core concern regarding the imposition of uniforms: that it may restrict students ’personal choices. This is a significant consideration in the debate on college uniforms, making it a strong argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments are strong, as they each provide valid and directly relevant perspectives on the policy question —one emphasizing ambience and uniformity, and the other emphasizing autonomy and individuality.

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