Statement: Should public holidays be declared on demise of important national leaders? Arguments: I.No. Such unscheduled holidays hamper national progress. II.Yes. People would like to pay their homage to the departed soul.
Clearly, unscheduled and untimely holidays would naturally cause the work to suffer. So, argument I holds strong. Also, a holiday is not necessary to pay homage to someone. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India? Arguments: I.No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country. II.Yes. It is democracy - let people decide whom to vote.
Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.
Statement: Should India support all the international policies of United States of America? Arguments: I.No. Many other powerful countries do not support the same. II.Yes. This is the only way to gain access to USA developmental funds.
Our country cannot support USA's policies blindly without analysis, just to gain monetary help. Also, we should not withdraw our support without considering the policies, just because some other nations have done so. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Statement: Should officers accepting bribe be punished? Arguments: I.No. Certain circumstances may have compelled them to take bribe. II.Yes. They should do the job they are entrusted with, honestly.
Statement: Should words like 'Smoking is injurious to health essentially appear on cigarette packs? Arguments: I.Yes. It is a sort of brainwash to make the smokers realize that they are inhaling poisonous stuff. II.No. It hampers the enjoyment of smoking.
Clearly, such words on cigarette packs would warn the smokers beforehand of its adverse effects. So, argument I holds strong. However, smoking is a bad habit with long-term health hazards and is no means of enjoyment. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should there be a complete ban on use of all types of chemical pesticides in India? Arguments: I.No. The pests will destroy all the crops and the farmers will have nothing to harvest. II.Yes. The chemical pesticides used in agriculture pollute the water underground and this has become a serious health hazard.
Clearly, pesticides are meant to prevent the crops from harmful pests. But at the same time, they get washed away with water and contaminate the groundwater. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
Answer & Explanation
View Answer
Workspace
Discussion
