# Reasoning Questions: Statements & Arguments Set 17

Hello Aspirants.

Welcome to Online Reasoning Section in AffairsCloud.com. Here we are creating question sample in Statements & Arguments  which is BASED ON Bank EXAMS 2019 !!!

Statements & Arguments

(Directions 1 – 10): Study the following information and answer the questions given below

1. Statement:
In 2016 last year the Government of India put a ban on all 500 and 1000 Rs notes in an effort to curtail the shadow economy and crack down on the use of illegal and fake currency that funds illegal activities and terrorism.
Arguments:
I. This was the best way to tackle corruption and to stop the use of counterfeit cash.
II. Demonetisation looks like a bad idea, badly executed on the basis of some half-baked notions.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 4) None are valid
Explanation :
When we look at the statement we see that it is a fact and we should look up for a Strong argument. But here both of the arguments are open to interpretation and is useless information.

2. Statement: Should women be allowed into combat arms if they meet all standards?
Arguments:
I. Yes, women have already proven competence in combat – they have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it makes no sense to officially continue excluding them.
II. No, the average female is physically weaker than the average male.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 1) Only I is strong
Explanation :
Argument I is strong as it gives a proper reason as to why women should be included in combat arms – because they have already worked in this area in Iraq and other places and so it makes sense to include them officially. Argument II is weak because it talks about a general scenario in comparing an average female with an average male. However, what if a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, on what basis should she be denied entry into combat arms?

3. Statement– Anti-Romeo squad is unlawful.
Arguments:
I. Yes, couple should be free from moral policing
II. No, this is precautionary measure to ensure that public places should be free from eve- teasing.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 2) Only II is strong
Explanation :
Anti- Romeo squad is the special wing of state police which ensures that a girl/ ladies should go to any place without fear of eve- teasing. It has nothing to do with moral policing.

4. Statement: Should the practice of transfer of sub- inspectors from police stations of one city to those of another be stopped?
Arguments:
I. No. Transfer of officers is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.
II. Yes, it involves a lot of government expenditure and causes inconvenience to many in comparison to the benefits it yields.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 4) None are valid
Explanation :
Argument I calls for continuing an official custom just for the sake of it. It does not give any other concrete reason for continuing the routine transfer of sub- inspectors or. It is not necessary that it is right to practice a ‘routine administrative matter’. Argument II on the other hand, talks about transfers leading to a lot of government expenditure and causing inconvenience to many as compared to the benefits it yields. Now a government should continue or discontinue a practise on the basis of the output yielded. Certainly, if continuing a practice yields better outcome than discontinuing it, the practise should be continued. The concern, thus, should not be the expenditure, procedure or convenience of the people involved in the process. Hence, neither of the statements is strong enough to support the given statement.

5. Statement:
Should India install more nuclear reactors for electricity generation.
Arguments:
I: Yes, the government can earn more revenue from them.
II: No, this will increase the costs of the government.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 4) None are valid
Explanation :
Both the arguments I and II are not forceful as revenue and money cannot be the sole factor that would be considered in a major decision concerning nuclear reactors. There are going to be more important and other factors as well that would need to be taken care of in taking a critical decision as this.

6. Statement:
Should the government abolish income tax in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, because most people default o income tax payments.
II. No, because the government gets a large part of its revenue from tax collection.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 2) Only II is strong
Explanation :
Argument I is baseless as it does not make sense to abolish income tax if people default on it. On the other hand, laws for ensuring tax payment should be made. Hence, argument II is forceful.

7. Statement: Government has asked people with sufficient income to give up the subsidy.
Arguments:
I. All citizens do not need the subsidy.
II. Poor people are not getting any subsidy.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 1) Only I is strong
Explanation :
We do not know whether the poor people get subsidy or not and proper information about their financial condition. Thus this argument does not follow. However, from the statement we can infer that the government has asked people with sufficient income to give up the subsidy but it is up to the people so government cannot say it with full confident. The rationale behind it is that these citizens who are privileged with a sufficient income do not need the subsidy. Thus argument 1 follows.

8. Statement:
India should increase the number of universities from 350 to 1500.
Arguments:
I: Yes, it is crucial to sustain India’s growth because we have a large number of people seeking education.
II: No, the increase will cause a dilution in academic standards and more corruption.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 1) Only I is strong
Explanation :
Argument I is a logical argument as the number of students seeking education is growing and thus the need for universities is also increasing. However, the corruption clause in argument II is beyond the scope of argument. Therefore, only argument I holds strength.

9. Statement:
Should there be a ban on product advertising.
Arguments:
I. Yes, the money spent on advertising is huge and it inflates the cost of the product.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 1) Only I is strong
Explanation :
Only argument I is strong because if the cost of the product increases, it will directly affect the consumers. Argument II is weak because the question is regarding the banning of advertisements and not regarding the sales of products through better advertisement.

10. Statement:
Is clear focus the key to high achievements?
Arguments:
I: Yes, one with no goal or focus leads a barren existence.
II: No, behind every successful man is a woman.
1) Only I is strong
2) Only II is strong
3) Both are equally valid
4) None are valid
5) Together they can be used to make a strong argument
Answer – 4) None are valid
Explanation :
The question is that whether focus can be regarded as the key to high achievements or not. Argument I talks about people who have no goals. It does not answer the question raised by main statement. Argument II has no connection with the main statement.

AffairsCloud Recommends Oliveboard Test