Statements and Arguments MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Statements and Arguments - Download Free PDF

Argument 1 is a 'strong' argument because it directly addresses the issue of cleanliness and environmental impact of dumping garbage on roads.

Argument 2 is a 'weak' argument because it does not directly address the immediate concerns related to the act of throwing garbage on the road and the relevance of punishment.

So, If only argument 1 is strong

Hence, the correct answer is "Option (3)".

Statement:- Should water be privatised in India?

Argument:-

(i)Yes, this might lead to improvement in distribution of water as the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.

(ii)No, Privatisation would centralise of benefits of water leading to increase in its cost. Not everyone would be capable of buying water at high costs.

→ As per the given statement, if water gets privatized, it might lead to improved water distribution, but privatization will directly harm the lower social class, as they will be unable to afford the water bills. Water is a basic human right, it should be freely available to all.

Thus, Only (ii) is a strong statement.

Hence, the correct answer is "Only (ii) is strong".

Statement:
Reclaimed land should be avoided as it only has disadvantages.

Arguments:

I. Many countries have no option but to reclaim land to provide for the increasing population → In this argument, there is an advantage shared about the reclaimed land but the statement suggests that it has only disadvantages since both of them points are against each other, the argument weakens the statement.

II. Land that is reclaimed has a long-lasting effect on nature as it deteriorates ecosystems and biodiversity → Here the bad effects of reclaimed land are discussed which in turn favours the point indicated in the statement so both of them lead towards the same direction i.e., negative effects of reclaimed lands, therefore, the argument strengthens the statement.

So the argument I weaken the statement, while argument II strengthens the statement.

Hence the correct answer is "I weakens, while II strengthens the statement".

Statement:

Should the minister distribute free laptops to underprivileged students who have dropped out of school?

Argument:

(I) Yes, school dropouts have no other source of entertainment, the laptops will keep them busy. ⇒ Weak (The purpose of free laptops like entertainment and keeping them busy is bad.)

(II) No, The minister can use the money to provide continued education and vocational training to the school dropouts so that they can earn a livelihood. ⇒ Strong (Education and vocational training can help the dropped-out students)

Here, only argument (II) is strong.

Hence, the correct answer is "Option (2)".

Statement:

Should the government disallow eating and drinking at all beaches?

Argument:

(I) Yes, People have been dumping plastic waste and other leftovers on beaches and have dirtied them a lot. ⇒ Strong (This is true that people plastic waste and other leftovers on beaches and have dirtied them a lot. )

(II) No, The leftover food is very crucial for the survival of sea creatures. ⇒ Weak (The leftover food is just garbage on the beaches and not needed for the survival of sea creatures.)

Here, only argument (I) is strong.

Hence, the correct answer is "Option (1)".

I. Yes, coal engines cause a lot of pollution.

The argument states that coal engines cause a lot of pollution which is true and strong enough.

II. No, India does not produce enough electricity to fulfill even the domestic needs.​

In India, we already have electric trains and government is working on this to increase electric trains. Hence, this argument is not strong.

Hence, option 1 is the correct answer.

Argument I: No, speed breakers are a simple way to reduce vehicle speed.

The argument is strong.

Speed breakers are the simplest way to reduce vehicle speed. 

Argument II: Yes, some people fail to see the speed breakers at night.

The argument is not strong.

People fail to see speed breakers at night which may cause accident and harm to the driver but, we cannot outlaw speed breakers. Precautionary measures can be taken like using radium to reflect light and prevent accidents at night or installing street lights can be done

Hence, Only argument I is strong.

Argument I is not strong because it's just a vague opinion which doesn't answer our problem of popularity of Harry Potter. It has no facts to substantiate the opinion.

Hence argument I isn't strong.

Argument II is strong as it substantiates through two common measures of popularity of books - fan base and sales figures - as to why Harry Potter is the most popular book series of the 21st century.

Hence argument II is strong.

Hence, only II is strong.

Having proposals from large industrial houses to buy coal blocks does not mean that the government should sell coal mines to private players. 

Coal is a natural resource and should be used wisely keeping in mind its impact on the environment, its availability for future use and for the welfare of the people.

Private players generally focus on profit and they do not think about the environment or other important factors.

Argument II is vague with the statement.

Hence, neither argument I nor II is strong.

Both the given arguments take extreme positions. Argument I completely holds teachers responsible while Argument II puts the full blame on the students. Failure of a student cannot be blamed entirely on a teacher or on the student alone. It can also be due to several other factors. Therefore, both the arguments are weak and option 4 is the correct answer.

Even if fares increased that doesn’t mean people will stop using that service. Because for some people train is basic mode of transportation. It’s possible that some people will shift to some other modes of transportation but still most of the people will use the train transportation. So assumption 1 supports the statement.

There is nothing mentioned about the probability of fare hike in other commutation modes. So assumption 2 doesn’t support the statement.

Hence option 1) is correct option.

Solution: Correct option is 4. Both I and II are strong.

The statement asks whether the death penalty should be banned in India.

Argument I states that if the decision to impose the death penalty is found to be wrong at a later stage, there is no possibility of going back. Once a person is hanged, he cannot be revived. Therefore such harsh punishment should be withdrawn. Hence, argument I is strong.

Argument II states that such severe punishment deters criminals from indulging in heinous crimes and also keeps a check on the crime rate and should not be banned. Hence, argument II is also strong.

Hence option 4 is correct.

I. No. This will create a political atmosphere in the campus:

It would create the same political atmosphere in the campus which can affect the studies of the students and can promote nuisance in the colleges.

II. Yes, it is very necessary as students are potential future political leaders:

To make the youth interested in politics, it is a good opportunity to make them aware of politics. 

Confusion PointsIn the questions of Statement and Argument, we just have to focus on whether the argument is strong or not. The argument being positive or negative doesn't matter in these questions, both the arguments can be of opposite views at the same time.

Statements: Indian cricket team should continue playing against the Pakistan cricket team.

I. Yes, it attracts both Indian and Pakistani audiences → Cricket or any sport is not played merely to attract audiences. This is a weak reason to encourage the continuation of cricket between India and Pakistan. Therefore, argument 1 is not strong.

II. No, it creates a dispute between India and Pakistan → Playing cricket or any sport need not create a conflict between two countries. Thus, this is also a weak reason to discontinue the cricket matches between Pakistan and India. Therefore, argument 2 is not strong.

Hence, 'Both arguments I and II are not strong' is the correct answer.

Given data :

Statement: Should use of mobile phone be banned while driving ?

Arguments: 

1. Yes, most of the time it causes accident → True strong argument (Talking or texting on a mobile phone while driving a vehicle is dangerous)

2. No, this can create a major problem for mobile users in emergency → False weak argument (We can also talk on mobile in an emergency case by stopping the vehicle)

Hence, 'Only argument 1 is strong' is the correct answer.