Statement:
Government proposed free metro rides for women commuters.
Arguments:
I) Yes. This will ensure safety of women passengers.
II) No. This will increase the burden on the government.
The question asks to evaluate the strength of two arguments regarding a government proposal for free metro rides for women commuters.
Argument I suggests the proposal is good because it will ensure the safety of women passengers. While women's safety is a valid concern and a potential benefit of such a policy, this argument focuses on a social outcome. In the context of evaluating the overall strength of an argument, especially concerning government policy, direct financial or operational impacts are often considered more critical factors.
Argument II opposes the proposal, stating it will increase the burden on the government. Providing free services invariably incurs significant costs (operational, maintenance, etc.). This argument points to a direct, measurable, and substantial financial consequence for the government. Such economic impacts are typically considered strong arguments when evaluating the feasibility and sustainability of a policy proposal.
Therefore, based on the typical evaluation criteria for policy arguments where financial implications are weighed heavily, only Argument II is considered strong.
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.