Reasoning Aptitude
STATEMENT AND ARGUMENTS MCQs
Total Questions : 635
| Page 62 of 64 pages
Question 611. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
II. No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
III. No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
IV. Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
Statement : Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
II. No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
III. No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
IV. Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
Answer: Option A. -> Only I is strong
Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.
Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.
Question 612. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
II. Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
III. No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
IV. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
Statement : Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
II. Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
III. No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
IV. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
Answer: Option D. -> Only II is strong
Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold.
Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold.
Question 613. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments :
I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
III. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
Statement : Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments :
I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
III. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
Answer: Option E. -> None of these
Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Question 614. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments :
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.
Statement : Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments :
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.
Answer: Option D. -> Only III is strong
The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.
The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.
Question 615. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the council of ministers once appointed be kept the same for the entire period intervening two elections?
Arguments :
I. No. Shuffling of ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process.
II. Yes. The ministers do not get a hold on their portfolio unless they are kept for a longer duration.
Statement : Should the council of ministers once appointed be kept the same for the entire period intervening two elections?
Arguments :
I. No. Shuffling of ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process.
II. Yes. The ministers do not get a hold on their portfolio unless they are kept for a longer duration.
Answer: Option D. -> Neither I nor II is strong
Shuffling of Cabinet ministers is just not a regular process, but a step to ensure proper working and implementation of schemes and avoid corruption. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Shuffling of Cabinet ministers is just not a regular process, but a step to ensure proper working and implementation of schemes and avoid corruption. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Question 616. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be only few banks in place of numerous smaller banks in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help secure the investor's money as these big banks will be able to withstand intermittent market related shocks.
II. No. A large number of people will lose their jobs as after the merger many employees will be redundant.
III. Yes. This will help consolidate the entire banking industry and will lead to healthy competition.
Statement : Should there be only few banks in place of numerous smaller banks in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help secure the investor's money as these big banks will be able to withstand intermittent market related shocks.
II. No. A large number of people will lose their jobs as after the merger many employees will be redundant.
III. Yes. This will help consolidate the entire banking industry and will lead to healthy competition.
Answer: Option A. -> None is strong
The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant. Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus, none of the arguments holds strong.
The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant. Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus, none of the arguments holds strong.
Question 617. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should class IV children have Board examination?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will motivate the children to study and get higher marks, and thus more knowledge can be imbibed at a younger age.
II. No. The children will be forced to study and won't enjoy the process.
III. Yes. In today's competitive world the children need to be prepared right from the beginning to face such difficult examinations.
IV. No. This will add pressure on tender aged children and leave very little time for them to play.
Statement : Should class IV children have Board examination?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will motivate the children to study and get higher marks, and thus more knowledge can be imbibed at a younger age.
II. No. The children will be forced to study and won't enjoy the process.
III. Yes. In today's competitive world the children need to be prepared right from the beginning to face such difficult examinations.
IV. No. This will add pressure on tender aged children and leave very little time for them to play.
Answer: Option C. -> Only II, III and IV are strong
Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also holds. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, I does not hold strong.
Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also holds. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, I does not hold strong.
Question 618. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should religion be taught in our schools?
Arguments :
I. No. Ours is a secular state.
II. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.
III. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfil its role in the 21st century.
Statement : Should religion be taught in our schools?
Arguments :
I. No. Ours is a secular state.
II. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.
III. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfil its role in the 21st century.
Answer: Option D. -> Only II is strong
Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact, these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact, these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Question 619. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present?
Arguments :
I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources.
II. Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay.
III. No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.
Statement : Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present?
Arguments :
I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources.
II. Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay.
III. No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.
Answer: Option D. -> Only I and III are strong
The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
The election process entails exorbitant expenditure. So, holding elections very often will surely lead to wastage of money and resources. Thus, I holds strong. Also, the elected representatives need a considerable period of time to implement their policies and also convince the voters of their working. So, III holds strong while II does not.
Question 620. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
II. Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
III. Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
IV. No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.
Statement : Should the number of holidays of government employees be reduced?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
II. Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
III. Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
IV. No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.
Answer: Option B. -> Only III is strong
Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold.
Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold.
Latest Videos
Latest Test Papers
Login With Google
Old way of Login
Login With Email