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 local train tickets be subsidized? Argument I : No, in an environment where locals trains are overcrowded, subsidy will worsen the situation. Argument II : Yes, Local trains reduce number of vehicles on the road, thus reducing pollution, reduce costs and travel time.

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 local train tickets be subsidized? Argument I : No, in an environment where locals trains are overcrowded, subsidy will worsen the situation. Argument II : Yes, Local trains reduce number of vehicles on the road, thus reducing pollution, reduce costs and travel time. Correct Answer If both argument I and II are strong

Argument 1: This is strong because already local trains are overcrowded, and subsidy will worsen the situation.

Argument 2: This is strong because Local trains reduce the number of vehicles on the road, thus reducing pollution, reduce costs and travel time, which tells us the assets of local trains.

Hence, both argument I and II are 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 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 high tax rates be imposed on businesses? Argument I : No, High taxes discourage investments, thus reducing jobs and development. Argument II : Yes, Some businesses use clever accounting to save tax, so higher taxes will be a good counter measure.
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.
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.
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: Since the University of Delhi has a large number of outstation students, should the local students get priority admissions over the outstation students? Arguments: Yes. The locals do not want to share their resources with the outsiders. No. The admissions are on the basis of competition and better students deserve to get admissions first irrespective of the place they come from.
In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. You have to consider the statement True even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given argument, if any, is a strong argument. Statement: Should Indian government Implant Air purifiers in all cities to curb air pollution. Arguments I: Yes, because in most of the Indian cities the PPM is above 200 which comes in category of “Extremely Dangerous” category. II: No, because this is not the permanent solution to curb air pollution
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 rock shows be allowed to run until midnight at tourist places? Argument I: Yes, more tourists arrive due to rock shows. Tourism is good for the local economy. Argument II: No, local traditions are harmed due to tourism.
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 children be allowed to use smartphones? Argument I: No, Smartphones are addictive, they reduce study time and play time. Argument II: Yes, the future is about technology. The sooner the children learn how to use technology the better for their and society's future.
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 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: In a competitive market, if one firm reduces its prices then should other firms also reduce their prices? Arguments: Yes. If the other firms do not reduce their prices, they would lose customers. No. The other firms will start facing losses by reducing their prices.