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: Is pen mightier than a sword? Arguments: I.  Yes. Writers can influence the thinking of people which a sword can’t do. II. No. With a sword, a person can win any battle and conquer anything.

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: Is pen mightier than a sword? Arguments: I.  Yes. Writers can influence the thinking of people which a sword can’t do. II. No. With a sword, a person can win any battle and conquer anything. Correct Answer Only argument 'I' is strong

The correct answer is option 1, i.e. Only argument 'I' is strong. 

Statement ‘I’ is strong as writers can change one’s thinking and can shape a person’s thoughts and beliefs. Statement ‘II’ is vague as the given statement is in the context of molding one’s thoughts and ideas and not winning a battle by physical force.

Related Questions

Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Is pen mightier than a sword? Arguments : I. Yes. Writers influence the thinking of the people. II. No. With the help of physical force one can conquer all.
Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Is pen mightier than a sword?

Arguments :
I. Yes. Writers influence the thinking of the people.
II. No. With the help of physical force one can conquer all.
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 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 atvariance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong argument. Statement : Should sale of alcohol near highways be banned? Argument I : No, people should have 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 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 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 eating Paan at public places be made punishable? Argument I: Yes, people eat Paan and spit and makes public places dirty.  Argument II: No, Indians love Paan.
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.
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 the use of marijuana in medicines also be banned? Argument 1: No. The medical use, prescribed and monitored, is helpful to cure a lot of rare conditions. Argument 2: Yes. The drug is narcotic and its overuse results in uncertain effects.
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 the rain water near factories be distributed by the municipal corporation for drinking purpose? Argument 1: Yes. The water distributed goes through a treatment plant, making it safe for drinking. Argument 2: No. The rainwater near factories is affected with chemicals that cannot be removed at water treatment plants.
Question: In the question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, numbered 1 and 2. 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 admissions to higher educational institutions be compulsorily based on merit? Argument 1: No. This would be unfair to the weaker students. Argument 2: Yes. This would improve the quality of work put in by students.