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 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 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. Correct Answer If only argument II is strong.

Clearly, only by considering the fundamental right we can’t take the chance with the people’s life. Ban of alcohol near highways could help to reduce the consumption of it by the drivers which might be able to reduce the rate further.

Hence, the arguments II is strong.

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 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 speed breakers be banned? Argument I: Yes, data shows that number of accidents increase after putting the speed breakers. Argument II: No, it teaches fast drivers a lesson.
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 speed breakers be banned? Argument I : Yes, data shows that number of accidents increase after putting the speed breakers.
Argument II : No, it teaches fast drivers a lesson.
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 alcohol be banned in India? Arguments: Yes. Drinking alcohol is not ethically right. No. Banning alcohol would only lead to illegal consumption and raise the prices of the commodity without actually affecting its consumption.
In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the following suggested courses of actions logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Starting October, all new cars will have pedestrian safety features, including new design of the bonnet, to reduce impact on pedestrians during accidents. Advanced safety features are needed in all vehicles in India as vehicle safety cannot be confined to luxury vehicles only. Around 1.5 lakh people are killed in road accidents every year in the country, nearly 60% of them are pedestrians.  Courses of action: I. The government has set a target to reduce the number of road deaths by half in the next two years. The ministry of road transport and highways has been issuing new safety standards for the automobiles along with eliminating the black spots on national highways.  II. By next month, all new cars will have pedestrian safety feature, including new design of the bonnet, to reduce impact on pedestrians during accidents.  III. Ministry of road transport and Highways is planning to implement all safety features in vehicles with active support of vehicle manufacturers. Electronic stability control (ESC) and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) will be incorporated in new vehicles by 2022.
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 question 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 fast food consumption be totally banned in our country? Argument: I: Yes. It is expensive and most of the people in our country cannot afford it. II: No. Not everything should be banned in a democratic country like ours. 
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.
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 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 social networking sites be banned permanently? Arguments: I. Yes. People can always talk on phone. II. No. They are a good medium to connect with people.  
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.