Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?

Arguments :
I. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
III. No. There is no such curb in western countries.
IV. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.

Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.

Statement : Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?

Arguments :
I. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
III. No. There is no such curb in western countries.
IV. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits. Correct Answer Only I and IV are strong

Clearly, our Constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.

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: World’s largest beer maker Heineken NV, the majority partner of United Breweries with Vijay Mallya, is understood to have sought legal opinion over its right to appoint a chairman at the Indian company. Heineken and some of its advisers believe that the shareholder agreement between Mallya and the beer giant has become null and void after India’s Enforcement Directorate attached his shares as part of its legal action against the liquor baron. Which among the following arguments support the above statement in the best possible manner? Arguments: I. UBL has stopped sharing confidential information with Mallya and has said that he is no longer privy to any strategic developments.  II. The board of UBL, India’s biggest beer company, had asked Mallya to either step down or appoint a nominee after the Securities and Exchange Board of India barred wilful defaulters from holding key board positions last year.  III. The company is functioning well and operations are in good shape but it is not good corporate governance to have an acting chairman for so long.