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 US built a nationalised 5G network on its own? Arguments: Yes. There are serious concerns relating to the Chinese government’s influence into telecommunication network equipment markets and concerns relating to Chinese spying in the US knowing that the Chinese companies are really developed in the telecommunication network equipment markets. No. The proposal for the federal government to build a standalone network would be ‘expensive and duplicative’.

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 US built a nationalised 5G network on its own? Arguments: Yes. There are serious concerns relating to the Chinese government’s influence into telecommunication network equipment markets and concerns relating to Chinese spying in the US knowing that the Chinese companies are really developed in the telecommunication network equipment markets. No. The proposal for the federal government to build a standalone network would be ‘expensive and duplicative’. Correct Answer Both arguments are strong

Both arguments are strong.

Allowing a free market for the 5G network would allow Chinese firms to enter the US market and this could pose a national security threat to the US knowing that the Chinese government has an influence on the Chinese companies in the telecommunication network equipment market. So, this could pose a serious threat of Chinese spying in the US. So, the argument 'I' is strong.

Argument 'II' is also equally strong. Building a nationalised 5G network would be expensive and duplicative and could harm the US economically.

Related Questions

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 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 making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong 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 are followed by two arguments each numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the two arguments is the strong argument and which is the weak argument. Statement: Should the Indian Government withdraw the subsidies on LPG cylinders considering a portion of the population can afford to buy unsubsidised cylinders? Arguments: Yes. Subsidising cylinders leads to its misuse. By not giving subsidies on cylinders, the Government can save a part of its income and spend it on other more productive uses. No. Withdrawing subsidies on cylinders would make them too expensive for the poor and the middle class income groups and they would eventually turn to unsustainable means for household uses leading to pollution and ill health.
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 New Delhi asked the Supreme Court to classify tobacco as “res extra commercium”, a Latin phrase meaning “outside commerce”? Arguments: Yes. Doing so would give the government the power “to regulate tobacco business and to mitigate evils” to safeguard public health. No. The measure would be “unreasonable” and would handicap the tobacco companies in their ability to trade tobacco products.
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 one 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 village authorities build a water tank in their village? Argument I: Yes, a tank is essential as it will provide water for dry summer months. Argument II: No, the sharing of tank water will lead to disharmony amongst the villagers.
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. 
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: As a trade war looms, one of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s biggest weapons could be boycotts of American brands by his country’s legion of consumers. But Xi would also be risking collateral damage at home, The China operations of all-American brands ranging from Coca-Cola Co. and McDonald’s Corp. to Walt Disney Co. are co-owned by state-backed Chinese firms.  Which among the following arguments support the above statement in the best possible manner? Arguments: I. One of Coke’s main China partners is government-backed COFCO Corp., Shanghai Disneyland is part owned by a local consortium, and McDonald’s franchisee in the country is controlled by state-backed conglomerate Citic Ltd. and private-equity firm Citic Capital Holdings.  II. Even when Chinese companies don’t have direct ownership links with U.S. brands, boycotts or other non-tariff retaliation would hit the local partners of those American companies. III. The number of big clean wins in terms of striking against the other guy (American brands) - without accidentally punching your own guy (Chinese firms) in the face - is extremely large.
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong 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 are followed by two arguments each numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the two arguments is the strong argument and which is the weak argument. Statement: Can the Government provide housing facilities to the homeless? Arguments: Yes. The Government can do anything and the homeless cannot get homes without the help of the Government. No. The Government does not have enough resources to provide for the housing facilities for such a large number of people. Instead the Government should build homeless shelters.
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.