Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In the question, a statement is given followed by two arguments 1 and 2. You have to take the statements 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, support the given statement. Statement: Should we declare war on our neighboring country Pakistan? Argument: 1. Yes, because the latter has been involved in many terrorist activities in India. This is the only way to stop them from doing such things. 2. No, war will cause great loss of money, infrastructure and human life.

In the question, a statement is given followed by two arguments 1 and 2. You have to take the statements 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, support the given statement. Statement: Should we declare war on our neighboring country Pakistan? Argument: 1. Yes, because the latter has been involved in many terrorist activities in India. This is the only way to stop them from doing such things. 2. No, war will cause great loss of money, infrastructure and human life. Correct Answer Only Argument 2 is strong

Statement: Should we declare war on our neighboring country Pakistan?

Argument:

1. Yes, because the latter has been involved in many terrorist activities in India. This is the only way to stop them from doing such things.

No war is not the right way to stop such activities. This results in the loss of both money and people.

War also affects the economic growth and development of any country.

So, Argument 1 not follows.

2. No, war will cause great loss of money, infrastructure, and human life.

Yes, War affects the economic growth, money, infrastructure, human life , and development of any country.

So, Argument 2 follows.

Hence, Only Argument 2 is strong.

Related Questions

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. According to the passage, why FATF did not remove Pakistan from the "grey list"?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. The purpose of the author in writing this passage seems to be
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 India wage war against Pakistan? Arguments: I. Yes. Pakistan is the biggest rival of India and is responsible for a lot of destruction in the past II. No. War is no solution to end the rivalry between both the nations and if a war happens then both the nations will have to suffer.
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. As per the passage, which word can replace CONVICTION grammatically and contextually?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. From the passage, it can be inferred that the author is:
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. What is the meaning of the word SHAMBLES in the passage?
Question: 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 Indian cricket team accept the invitation for a tournament hosted in Pakistan given the hostile situation in the host country? Argument 1: Yes. Politics should not affect sportsmen spirit. Argument 2: No. Safety of the players should not be undermined.
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 India limit the money spent on political rallies and campaigns? Arguments: I: Yes, it will save money which can be used in other welfare activities. II: No, the amount of money spent on campaigns is directly proportional to the number of votes obtained.
In the question statement are given, followed by two arguments, I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which argument(s) is/are strong based on the information provided. Statement : Should the private sector be completely nationalised in India? Argument I : Yes, the only way to develop the private sector is by nationalising them Argument II : No, because after nationalisation the private sector will operate less efficiently. 
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below if followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Should government ban child labour? Arguments: I. Yes, because they are forced to work against their will. Lots of kids die because they work in dangerous environment. II Yes, because instead of making them work they should be educated as it is their basic right.