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.
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.
Statement: Should children be prevented completely from watching television? Arguments: I.No. We get vital information regarding education through television. II.Yes. It hampers the study of children. III.Yes. Young children are misguided by certain programmes featuring sex and violence. Iv.No. This is the only way to educate the masses.
Clearly, television offers various educational programmes which are of great practical value to the students. So, it serves as a means (but it is not the 'only' means) to educate the masses. Thus, I holds strong while IV does not. Besides, the demerits of watching television, mentioned in II and III, may be done away with by allowing children to watch selected programmes on television, according to a set schedule. So, neither II nor III holds strong.
Statement: Should trade unions be banned completely? Arguments: I.Yes. Workers can concentrate on production. II.No. This is the only way through which employees can put their demands before the management. III.Yes. Employees get their illegal demands fulfilled through these unions. Iv.No. Trade unions are not banned in other economically advanced countries.
Clearly, trade unions provide a common platform for the workers to voice their demands and protests and thus ensure that they are not subdued or exploited. So, argument II holds strong, while I and III do not. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument IV also does not hold strong.
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.
Clearly, mercy death will serve as a 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.
Statement: Should all the management institutes in the country be brought under government control? Arguments: I.No. The government does not have adequate resources to run such institutes effectively. II.No. Each institute should be given freedom to function on its own. III.Yes. This will enable to have standardized education for all the students. Iv.Yes. Only then the quality of education would be improved.
Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide any convincing reason. Also, it is not obligatory that government control over the institutes would ensure better education than that at present. So, both III and IV also do not hold.
Statement: Should there be a total ban on tobacco products and smoking in India? Arguments: I.Yes. It is wrong to smoke away millions of money. II.No. It will throw thousands of workers in the tobacco industry out of employment. III.No. The government will lose huge amount of money as it will not earn by way of taxes on these products.
Clearly, smoking needs to be abolished because it is injurious to health and not only to save money. So, argument I is vague. Banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. So, argument II holds strong. Also, tobacco products are a source of big revenue for the government. So, argument III also holds.
Answer & Explanation
View Answer
Workspace
Discussion
