Question:
Should the government control the country's news channels?
Arguments:
P. News is controlled by the Government in many countries.
Q: No, controlling any news loses its reliability.
Argument P states that governments control news in many countries. This is a factual observation about the current situation in some nations.
However, stating that something exists or is practiced somewhere does not inherently make it a strong or weak policy. This argument doesn't address the core question of *whether* the government *should* control news channels, only that it *is* controlled in places. Therefore, Argument P is considered weak.
Argument Q asserts that controlling any news leads to a loss of its reliability.
This argument directly tackles the question by presenting a significant negative consequence of government control. Undermining the reliability of news is a critical issue, making this a logically sound and relevant point against government intervention. Thus, Argument Q is considered strong.
Comparing the two arguments, Argument P is a weak observation, while Argument Q presents a strong, logical reason against government control of news channels due to its impact on reliability.
A statement is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the statement.
Statement:
Officers in the administrative departments should be transferred.
Arguments:
1. Yes, they get friendly with people and can be manipulated by them.
2. No, officers do not like to get transferred frequently.
In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. You have to consider the statement to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong argument.
Statement: Should the sale of alcohol near highways be banned?
Argument I: No, people should have the freedom to decide as it is their fundamental right.
Argument II: Yes, 90% of road accidents involve drivers who are under influence of alcohol.A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should plastic bags be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is one of the sources of pollution and causes many diseases.
II. No, other alternatives of plastic may not be that colourful and attractive.A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should all criminals be given severe punishments?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It will induce fear in criminals and crime would reduce greatly.
2. No. Human life is precious, and criminals should also be given a chance to improve.
A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Are joint families better than nuclear families?
Arguments:
1. Yes, joint families ensure security and the burden of work is shared.
2. No, nuclear families ensure freedom and there is no disturbance.
A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should vegetarian food be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. No, it is cheap source of protein and other minerals and a lot of people can afford it.
II. No, it will violate people's freedom.