Discussion :: Statement and Argument - Section 1 (Q.No.1)
Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.
- (A) If only argument I is strong
- (B) If only argument II is strong
- (C) If either I or II is strong
- (D) If neither I nor II is strong and
- (E) If both I and II are strong.
|Ramesh said: (Aug 23, 2011)|
|When most things are insufficient/shortage for internal use. Is the argument I holds strong only to earn foreign exchange ? How it is feasible to afford the internal shortage ? To my mind argument II is strong. Pl discuss.|
|Saksham said: (Sep 10, 2011)|
|Argument 2 is weak as exports of selective items which are not scarce will not harm India.["No. Even selective encouragement would lead to shortages." Doesnt hold]
Argument 1 is strong as it is basic economics.
|Onibaba said: (May 10, 2012)|
|For me none of the statements holds i.e both not strong|
|Salunke S.D. said: (May 11, 2012)|
|Answer is A because India can export only the surplus and the foreign exchange so earned can be utilized to pay for imports.|
|Savan said: (Sep 18, 2012)|
|The question has been put with a sense where ay iuthor is not in favor of exchange as he augments his explanation with statement that we are falling short.
That is why I feel arg-2 strengthens.
|Manish Kumar Mishra said: (Aug 12, 2013)|
|Argument 1 is strong because it is completely co-related with statement(we should not thing beyond the main issue of statement at any account).|
|Asad Zaman said: (Aug 16, 2013)|
|This conclusion is IDEOLOGICAL, and does not LOGICALLY follow. There are two opposing ETHICS -- One of them is to encourage self-sufficiency (Gandhi) which supports argument II. The other is the comparative advantage theory of economics, which supports argument I. It is not logically true that acquiring imports will prevent shortages, since exported goods might be foods/grains, while imports might be luxuries.|
|Ambih said: (May 10, 2014)|
|Author should have chosen option A because argument 1 gives a solution for shortage where as argument 2 doesn't tell a solution for shortage -it just tell have what you got. This is the only reason why argument 1 strengthens and argument 2 weakens. Hence option A.|
|Madhav Kakkar said: (Mar 14, 2015)|
|Argument 1 doesn't seems to be strong because it is not totally related with Statement.|
|Andrew Kim said: (Nov 16, 2016)|
|Argument C is correct in my opinion. A nation's wealth Is mostly accumulated by what is sold domestically and globally these days. India, on the other hand, has enough number of people to sustain its own economy, but it surely wouldn't care for it because global trade is the only way to stay competitive in this globalised era. So, yes, if India only encourages only for the export, they might not have sufficient resources in their hands to feed its over-billion population. And also yes, like the argument I said, if most of the money earned from export should be spent on buying foreign items, India can succeed. Even if you just look at the number of people you can see how tremendously much amount of goods they can produce with less money, you will say this country needs to export, forsake of the only advantage that India has, cheap and giant labour force.
So, both the arguments are strong given that if each one was to hold different account and situation, each of them can be proven with enough evidence. However, if the both account is to be in the same situation where they both are situated either in anti-import or in anti-export policies, then either argument I is true or argument II is true.
|Raghav said: (Dec 21, 2016)|
|How can we say that 1st 1 follows because in the statement that's clear that insufficient things then we can export things? Please explain me.|
|Rajkumar Thakur said: (Mar 25, 2017)|
|When most things are insufficient to internal use how we can export it leads to the shortage. So how statement 1 is strong? So, it should be 2.|
|Ubani said: (Oct 19, 2018)|
Exactly! The later part of the sentence says "when most things are insufficient for internal use". How can we be talking of export to pay for imports when the basic things required for use internally aren't enough?
In my opinion, 2 is not even a strong argument because some selective exports would not lead to so long as they are not part of the"major things that are insufficient for internal use".
|Shashank said: (Mar 26, 2019)|
|Yes, when most things are insufficient for internal use itself then why one must encourage Export. But doesn't that insufficiency be filled by earning forex reserves so we can import things?
So, I believe Statement 1 follows.
|Saurabh Khaladkar said: (Sep 22, 2020)|
|But they've said most of the things are insufficient for internal use itself,
Do they mean most of the things that we export are insufficient for internal use? Please explain me.
|Dipankar said: (Mar 19, 2021)|
|I think statement 1 is true because it is strongly recommended for a country to grow. And it is clear that statement 2 is not true because it is directly given selective things which is not necessary.|
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.