Statements and Arguments MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Statements and Arguments - Download Free PDF

Statement:
Reclaimed land should be avoided as it only has disadvantages.

Arguments:

I. Many countries have no option but to reclaim land to provide for the increasing population → In this argument, there is an advantage shared about the reclaimed land but the statement suggests that it has only disadvantages since both of them points are against each other, the argument weakens the statement.

II. Land that is reclaimed has a long-lasting effect on nature as it deteriorates ecosystems and biodiversity → Here the bad effects of reclaimed land are discussed which in turn favours the point indicated in the statement so both of them lead towards the same direction i.e., negative effects of reclaimed lands, therefore, the argument strengthens the statement.

So the argument I weaken the statement, while argument II strengthens the statement.

Hence the correct answer is "I weakens, while II strengthens the statement".

We take a look at the given statements as follows:

A) Organisation is focusing on tribal flora and fauna of the region. → Turtle conservation isn't essentially a part of tribal flora and fauna conservation. The organisation might have shifted its focus to a different objective all together. Hence, this statement doesn't weaken the decision. 

B) Mega Resort wants the best economic outcomes. → It might be the case that partnering with Company X leads to a more overall net profit for the resort. Hence, this statement doesn't weaken the decision. 

C) Organisation Y is a much more established and stable organisation as compared to Organisation X. → This might hamper or impact the decision due to the effective supremacy of Company Y over Company X. Hence, this statement does weaken the decision. 

Therefore, only statement C weakens the decision taken by the resort. 

Hence, only statement C weakens the decision.

We take a look at the given statements as follows:

A) By building new rooms, area of school playground will be decreased. → The presence of playgrounds is an important aspect of schools and the parents as well. Decreasing it might lower the appeal of admission for new students. Hence, this statement weakens the decision. 

B) There is another school in the area where students are taking admission. → If there are more seats in the school, then interested students will not have to take admission in another school. Hence, this statement doesn't weaken the decision. 

C) Many students wanted to take admission in this school last year but could not have taken due to less seating capacity. → This strengthens the decision as those interested students can now take admission due to increased seats. Hence, this statement doesn't weaken the decision. 

D) Parents of the students already complaining about the less attention towards their children. → The more the number of students, the lesser will be the individual attention towards students. Hence, this statement weakens the decision. 

Therefore, only statements A and D weaken the decision.

Hence, only statements A and D weaken the decision.

Statement: Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?

Now,

Arguments:

I. Yes. It will create job opportunities. → True (starting new big industries in Mumbai, citing the potential for job creation as a positive factor. Indeed, the establishment of large industrial units can generate employment opportunities for the local population and contribute to economic growth).

II. No. it will further add to the pollution of the city → False (Stringent environmental regulations and effective implementation of pollution control measures can mitigate the negative impacts of industrial activities on the city's environment).

So, Only argument I is strong.

Hence, the correcet answer is "Option 3".

Given statement: Should India stop exporting its surplus goods?

Given arguments:

I. Yes, the country has to fulfill its own needs first. → Weak

This suggest India should prioritize its own needs. However, it misses the point that the goods are already surplus. So this argument is weak because it doesn't consider that surplus goods are, by definition, more than what's needed domestically.

II. No, because the goods are already surplus. → Strong

This directly addresses the fact that surplus goods exist after domestic needs are met. So exporting them doesn't impact domestic needs, its actually beneficial to export surplus goods. Therefore it is a strong argument.

Thus, (B) If only argument II is strong.

Hence, "Option 2" is the correct answer.

I. Yes, coal engines cause a lot of pollution.

The argument states that coal engines cause a lot of pollution which is true and strong enough.

II. No, India does not produce enough electricity to fulfill even the domestic needs.​

In India, we already have electric trains and government is working on this to increase electric trains. Hence, this argument is not strong.

Hence, option 1 is the correct answer.

Argument I: No, speed breakers are a simple way to reduce vehicle speed.

The argument is strong.

Speed breakers are the simplest way to reduce vehicle speed. 

Argument II: Yes, some people fail to see the speed breakers at night.

The argument is not strong.

People fail to see speed breakers at night which may cause accident and harm to the driver but, we cannot outlaw speed breakers. Precautionary measures can be taken like using radium to reflect light and prevent accidents at night or installing street lights can be done

Hence, Only argument I is strong.

Argument I is not strong because it's just a vague opinion which doesn't answer our problem of popularity of Harry Potter. It has no facts to substantiate the opinion.

Hence argument I isn't strong.

Argument II is strong as it substantiates through two common measures of popularity of books - fan base and sales figures - as to why Harry Potter is the most popular book series of the 21st century.

Hence argument II is strong.

Hence, only II is strong.

Having proposals from large industrial houses to buy coal blocks does not mean that the government should sell coal mines to private players. 

Coal is a natural resource and should be used wisely keeping in mind its impact on the environment, its availability for future use and for the welfare of the people.

Private players generally focus on profit and they do not think about the environment or other important factors.

Argument II is vague with the statement.

Hence, neither argument I nor II is strong.

Both the given arguments take extreme positions. Argument I completely holds teachers responsible while Argument II puts the full blame on the students. Failure of a student cannot be blamed entirely on a teacher or on the student alone. It can also be due to several other factors. Therefore, both the arguments are weak and option 4 is the correct answer.

Solution: Correct option is 4. Both I and II are strong.

The statement asks whether the death penalty should be banned in India.

Argument I states that if the decision to impose the death penalty is found to be wrong at a later stage, there is no possibility of going back. Once a person is hanged, he cannot be revived. Therefore such harsh punishment should be withdrawn. Hence, argument I is strong.

Argument II states that such severe punishment deters criminals from indulging in heinous crimes and also keeps a check on the crime rate and should not be banned. Hence, argument II is also strong.

Hence option 4 is correct.

I. No. This will create a political atmosphere in the campus:

It would create the same political atmosphere in the campus which can affect the studies of the students and can promote nuisance in the colleges.

II. Yes, it is very necessary as students are potential future political leaders:

To make the youth interested in politics, it is a good opportunity to make them aware of politics. 

Confusion PointsIn the questions of Statement and Argument, we just have to focus on whether the argument is strong or not. The argument being positive or negative doesn't matter in these questions, both the arguments can be of opposite views at the same time.

Even if fares increased that doesn’t mean people will stop using that service. Because for some people train is basic mode of transportation. It’s possible that some people will shift to some other modes of transportation but still most of the people will use the train transportation. So assumption 1 supports the statement.

There is nothing mentioned about the probability of fare hike in other commutation modes. So assumption 2 doesn’t support the statement.

Hence option 1) is correct option.

Statements: Indian cricket team should continue playing against the Pakistan cricket team.

I. Yes, it attracts both Indian and Pakistani audiences → Cricket or any sport is not played merely to attract audiences. This is a weak reason to encourage the continuation of cricket between India and Pakistan. Therefore, argument 1 is not strong.

II. No, it creates a dispute between India and Pakistan → Playing cricket or any sport need not create a conflict between two countries. Thus, this is also a weak reason to discontinue the cricket matches between Pakistan and India. Therefore, argument 2 is not strong.

Hence, 'Both arguments I and II are not strong' is the correct answer.

In the last fifteen to eighteen years, the internet has expanded rapidly all over the world, leading to huge levels of exposure and judgement directed at teenagers. This has led to rising stress levels amongst teenagers who were not present in the last century. Hence, the argument I holds true.

A situation that might cause stress to one person might or might not be stressful to others. Hence, it is true that stress is a relative perception that can be managed with proper guidance.

Therefore, argument II also holds true.