Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.
(A) If only argument I is strong
(B) If only argument II is strong
(C) If either I or II is strong
(D) If neither I nor II is strong and
(E) If both I and II are strong.
Statement: Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
III. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the Objectives of a system are not fulfilled because of corruption, then getting rid of the system is no solution. Instead, efforts should be made to end corruption and extend its benefits to the people for whom it is meant. So, argument II also does not hold,
Abolishing the import duty on electronic goods shall reduce the costs of imported goods and adversely affect the sale of the domestic products, thus giving a setback to the Indian electronics industry. So, argument II holds strong. Argument I does not provide a convincing reason.
Statement: Should there be a ceiling on the salary of top executives of multinationals in our country?
I.Yes. Otherwise it would lead to unhealthy competition and our own industry would not be able to withstand that.
II.No. With the accent on liberalization of economy, any such move would be counter-productive. Once the economy picks up, this disparity will be reduced.
In the absence of such a ceiling, the companies would be involved in a mutual competition of salaries, in a bid to attract the most competent professionals. So, argument I holds. Also, the prospects of increase in salary would encourage the officials to perform better in the interest of the company they serve, which would otherwise not be so if a ceiling is imposed. So, argument II also holds strong.