Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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 privatization of every government bank be promoted? Argument 1: Yes. That would reduce the administrative burden on the government. Argument 2: No. That would weaken the financial condition of government banks.

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 privatization of every government bank be promoted? Argument 1: Yes. That would reduce the administrative burden on the government. Argument 2: No. That would weaken the financial condition of government banks. Correct Answer Neither argument 1 nor 2 is strong.

The privatization of government banks may reduce the burden of administration on the government but that would defy the purpose of a government; governments are responsible for the administration and management of all the financial activities of the country. Therefore, argument 1 is not a strong enough argument to support the privatization of every government bank.

The privatization of government banks is undertaken to improve its functioning and efficiency. It can not be said that privatization would weaken the financial condition of government banks, it will depend upon the private party and the bank. So, argument 2 is not a strong point against the statement.

Related Questions

The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong’ arguments and which is/are ‘weak’ arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement: A shortage of bank branches and ATMs across India’s hinterland is holding back Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s financial inclusion efforts and risks angering rural voters ahead of elections next year. After taking office in 2014, Modi set an ambitious target to open a bank account for every household to ensure welfare funds flow directly to India’s poor, while improving access to credit and insurance programs. He pushed policies that helped bring 310 million people into the formal banking system in just four years, according to the World Bank. Based on the arguments stated below and he information stated above, which of the following arguments state the reason for the problem, ‘But many of India’s villages still lack bank branches or ATMs to help service new customers, while the pace of building new financial infrastructure has actually slowed’.  Arguments: I. Because Modi’s government effectively forced poor citizens into the banking system by linking some welfare benefits to bank accounts, villagers have ended up stuck in long queues and struggling with ATMs that often run out of cash or break down.  II. With an election due next year, the mismatch between the government’s policies and the rural banking system is generating frustration among a key slice of India’s electorate. III. The banking system struggled to keep up, while some gains proved temporary. Nearly half of Indian bank accounts were inactive in 2017, meaning they weren’t used at all in the previous 12 months
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 local train tickets be subsidized? Argument I : No, in an environment where locals trains are overcrowded, subsidy will worsen the situation. Argument II : Yes, Local trains reduce number of vehicles on the road, thus reducing pollution, reduce costs and travel time.
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 2-wheelers be exempted from the proposed Delhi ODD-EVEN scheme (vehicles with a license plate ending in an odd number would drive on the Delhi roads on one day and with a licence plate ending in an even number would be driven on the other day)? Arguments: I: No, 2-wheelers cause more pollution than cars. II: Yes, 2-wheelers are used by the lower middle-class people.
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 is 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 we plant more water purification plants? Arguments: I. Yes. There is need of safer drinking water. II. No. The setup cost would be a burden on government.  
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 minimum deposits be banned to open an account in a bank? Arguments: I. Yes, because people who aren’t making enough money can also open a bank account to save their earnings. II. No, because bank has to pay overhead to run branches, maintain accounts and more thus requires minimum deposits.
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 banks provide special loans to farmers? Arguments: I. Yes, as with that amount the farmer would be able to afford modern equipment’s which will increase his earnings. II. No, because people may take advantage of this, even those who can afford to pay may not.
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.
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.
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 children be allowed to use smartphones? Argument I: No, Smartphones are addictive, they reduce study time and play time. Argument II: Yes, the future is about technology. The sooner the children learn how to use technology the better for their and society's future.
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.