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.
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.
Statement: Should all the profit making public sector units be sold to private companies? Arguments: I.Yes. This will help the government to augment its resources for implementing the development programmes. II.No. The private companies will not be able to run these units effectively. III.Yes. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of services. Iv.No. There would not be job security for the employees at all the levels.
The government cannot sell off public sector units just to pool up funds for development. Besides, if it does so, these units shall be handed over to private companies which are fully equipped to run these units effectively. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Privatization shall surely ensure better services, but private companies adopt hire and fire policy and they are free to terminate the services of any employee as and when they wish to. Thus, both III and IV hold strong.
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?
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.
Statement: Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar? Arguments: I.No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun. II.Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked. III.No. There is no such curb in western countries. Iv.Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.
Clearly, our Constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.
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.
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.
Statement: Should the government ban all forms of protests including strikes and processions? Arguments: I.Yes. This is the only way to teach discipline to the employees. II.No. Government cannot deprive its citizens of their basic rights. III.Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruption of work.
Clearly, strike is not a means of indiscipline but only a practice in which the workers exercise their fundamental right to voice their protest against the atrocities of the management. So, argument I is vague while II holds. Also, the option of resorting to strikes often aggravates petty issues and disrupts work for long periods, thus affecting productivity. So, III also holds strong.
Answer & Explanation
View Answer
Workspace
Discussion
