Statement: Should the income generated out of agricultural activities be taxed? Arguments: I.No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed. II.Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources. III.Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
Statement: Should administrative officers be transferred after one or two years? Arguments: I.Yes. They get friendly with local people and are manipulated by them. II.No. By the time their policies and schemes start taking shape, they have to leave. III.No. This will create a lot of administrative hassles and cause a lot of inconvenience to the officers.
Clearly, the acquaintance of administrative officers with the local people poses no harm. So, argument I is vague. However, both II and III hold strong, because making transfers too often would neither give them enough time to settle down comfortably in a new place, nor enable them to formulate and implement their policies in toto. This would also be administratively impossible.
Statement: Should there be a complete ban on genetically modified imported seeds? Arguments: I.Yes. This will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds. II.No. This is the only way to increase production substantially. III.Yes. Genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products.
Genetically modified imported seeds have been specially formulated to increase the yield and quality of produce. So, argument II is strong. Besides, increase in production holds much more significance than the sale of domestically produced seeds. Thus, argument I does not hold. Also, the genetically modified seeds result in a producer of finer quality which is no way harmful to the consumer. So, III also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should the consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India? Arguments: I.Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases. II.No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants. III.No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on human body. Iv.Yes. It is banned in many other countries also.
The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid. Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intake of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless its harmful effects have been proved. So, III holds strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by other countries. So, IV also does not hold.
Statement: Is caste-based reservation policy in professional colleges justified? Arguments: I.Yes. The step is a must to bring the underprivileged at par with the privileged ones. II.No. It obstructs the establishment of a classless society. III.Yes. This will help the backward castes and classes of people to come out of the oppression of upper caste people.
Clearly, capability is an essential criteria for a profession and reservation cannot ensure capable workers. So, neither I nor III holds strong. However, making one caste more privileged than the other through reservations would hinder the objectives of a classless society. So, argument II holds strong.
Statement: Should the system of Lok Adalats and mobile courts be encouraged in India? Arguments: I.Yes. It helps to grant speedy justice to the masses. II.Yes. The dispensing of minor cases at this level would reduce the burden on the higher courts. III.No. These courts are usually partial in justice.
Courts are meant to judge impartially. So, argument III is vague. The system of local courts shall speed up justice by providing easy approach and simplified procedures, and thus ease the burden of the higher courts. So, I as well as II holds strong.
Answer & Explanation
View Answer
Workspace
Discussion
