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: Is it advantageous to hold elections simultaneously for parliament and the state assemblies? Argument: I: Yes, this way ensures election expenditure is reduced. II: No, Parties are held accountable through frequent elections, which will lose it purpose through joint elections.

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: Is it advantageous to hold elections simultaneously for parliament and the state assemblies? Argument: I: Yes, this way ensures election expenditure is reduced. II: No, Parties are held accountable through frequent elections, which will lose it purpose through joint elections. Correct Answer <p>If both I and II are strong.</p>

Both arguments I and II are strong because by conducting elections simultaneously for parliament and the state assemblies, election expenditure is reduced and also parties cannot be held accountable which means no by-elections and No confidence motion. 

Related Questions