Practice One statement three or more arguments questions - verbal reasoning Online Quiz (set-1) For All Competitive Exams

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-1)  
  • Statement:
  • Should the sale of vital human organs be made legal in India?
  • Arguments:
  • I. No, it goes against our culture.
  • II. No, this will lead to unhealthy practices.
  • III. Yes, this will bring an end to the illegal trading of human organs.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Argument I is weak because talking of culture is irrelevant in this case.

In fact, Argument I is not even true. Argument II is weak because it is simplistic. We are not told what these 'unhealthy practices' will be.

Argument III is weak because it is superfluous.

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-2)  
  • Statement:
  • should the salary and perquisites of public sector undertaking employees be made equivalent to those in the private sector?
  • Arguments:
  • I. Yes, this will help the public sector undertaking to attract and retain a competent workforce.
  • II. No, public sector undertakings cannot afford to pay salaries to the level of the private sector.
  • III. Yes, otherwise the public sector undertakings will not be able to compete with the private sector organisations.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

The competent workforce is desirable. Hence, Argument I is strong.

Argument II does not appear to be true for all PSUs. And even it is true, an argument that takes recourse in helplessness seems to fall short on merit.

Argument III is strong as competition is desirable.

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-3)  
  • Statement:
  • Should the Government order closure of all educational institutions for a month to avoid fast spreading of the contagious viral infection?
  • Arguments:
  • I. No, the closure of educational institutions alone is not the solution for curbing the spread of the viral infection.
  • II. No, students will visit crowded places like malls, markets, playgrounds etc in more numbers and spread the disease, as they will have a lot of spare time at their disposal.
  • III. Yes, young persons are more prone to get affected by the viral infection and hence, they should remain indoors.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Argument I is weak as it merely tries to evade the issue.

Argument II may turn out to be true but it is based on a negative mindset, maybe it's mere of an assumption. Hence, II is weak.

Argument III gets into the reason and is therefore strong.

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-4)  
  • Statement:
  • Should there be a complete ban on setting up thermal power plants in India?
  • Arguments:
  • I. Yes, this is the only way to control further adds to environmental pollution.
  • II. No, there is a huge shortage of electricity in most parts of the country and hence, the generation of electricity needs to be augmented.
  • III. No, many developed countries continue to set up thermal power plants in their countries.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Argument I is weak because of the use of only Argument II is strong as the country's power need cannot be ignored.

Argument III is weak because it is the argument based on example.

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-5)  
  • Statement:
  • Should road repair work in big cities be carried out only late at night?
  • Arguments:
  • I. No, this way the work will never get completed.
  • II. No, there will be an unnecessary use of electricity.
  • III. Yes, the commuters will face a lot of problems due to repair work during the day.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Argument I is not true for all roads: work is often done in phases and meets completion.

Argument II is weak: such use of electricity cannot be termed ‘unnecessary.'

Argument III is strong as it shows concern for commuters.

Directions:
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments.
    * 'Strong' Arguments must be both important and directly related to the question.
    * 'Weak' Arguments may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspects of the question.
    Each question below is followed by four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument?

Q-6)  
  • Statement:
  • Should the rule of wearing a helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motorbike to be enforced strictly?
  • Arguments:
  • I. Yes, it is a rule and should be followed strictly by all.
  • II. No, each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to this discretion.
  • III. No, it does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and the rest of the body is not.
  • IV. Yes, it is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Arguments I and IV are strong because the rule of wearing a helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike should be followed strictly by all.

It protects our head which is the most sensitive organ of the human body.

Directions:
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.

Q-7)  
  • Statement:
  • Should there be a complete ban on Indian professionals seeking jobs elsewhere after getting their education in India? 
  • Arguments:
  • I. Yes. This is the only way to sustain the present rate of technological development in India.
  • II. No. The Indians settled abroad to send a huge amount of foreign exchange and this constitutes a significant part of foreign exchange reserve.
  • III. No. The practical knowledge gained by Indians by working in other countries helps India develop its economy.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Clearly, none of the arguments provides a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. 

So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Directions:
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.

Q-8)  
  • Statement:
  • Should all the students graduating in any discipline desirous of pursuing post-graduation of the subjects of their choice be allowed to enroll in the post-graduate courses?
  • Arguments:
  • I. Yes. The students are the best judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses.
  • II. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enroll in post-graduate courses and the students must fulfil such conditions.
  • III. No. There are not enough institutes offering postgraduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:  

Only argument II is strong. The students cannot be enrolled in the courses just on the basis of their interests, but their compatibility with the same also matters.

So, I do not hold. Besides, lack of institutes is no criteria to deny post-graduate courses to students.

So, argument III also does not hold. II provides a genuine reason and thus holds strong.

Directions:
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.

Q-9)  
  • Statement:
  • Should there be only a 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.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

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.

Directions:
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' argument(s) and which is/are 'weak' argument(s) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.

Q-10)  
  • Statement:
  • Should mercy death be legalized, i.e., all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire?
  • Arguments:
  • I. No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity.
  • II. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death.
  • III. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Explanation:

Clearly, mercy death will serve as liberation to those to whom living is more difficult and painful. But then, it is an inhuman act and does not appeal.

So, both arguments II and III hold strong.

Besides, it becomes our moral duty to encourage such people to live their lives to the fullest and support them through the crisis, and not demoralize them by allowing them to die if they wish to.

Hence, argument I also holds strong.