Statement: Should we scrap the 'Public Distribution System' in India? Arguments: I.Yes, Protectionism is over, everyone must get the bread on his/her own. II.Yes. The poor do not get any benefit because of corruption.
The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the Objectives of a system are not fulfilled because of corruption, then getting rid of the system is no solution. Instead, efforts should be made to end corruption and extend its benefits to the people for whom it is meant. So, argument II also does not hold,
Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished? Arguments: I.Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism. II.No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.
Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should India have no military force at all? Arguments: I.No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence. II.Yes. Many Indians believe in non-violence.
Clearly, India needs to have military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Statement: Are nuclear families better than joint families? Arguments: I.No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work. II.Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.
Clearly, with so many people around in a joint family, there is more security. Also, work is shared. So, argument I holds. In nuclear families, there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.
Statement: Should the oil companies be allowed to fix the price of petroleum products depending on market conditions? Arguments: I.Yes. This is the only way to make the oil companies commercially viable. II.No. This will put additional burden on the retail prices of essential commodities and will cause a lot of hardships to the masses.
Clearly, oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds strong.
Statement: Should government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports? Arguments: I.Yes. This money can be utilized for upliftment of the poor. II.No. Sports persons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure.
Clearly, spending money on sports cannot be avoided merely because it can be spent on socio-economic problems. So, argument I does not hold. Also, if the expenses on sports are curtailed, the sports persons would face lack of facilities and training and our country will lag behind in the international sports competitions. So, II holds.
Answer & Explanation
View Answer
Workspace
Discussion
