Discussion :: Statement and Argument - Section 2 (Q.No.37)
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.
|Ajaykumar Nagoju said: (Feb 28, 2012)|
|Why should government should feed them? is there any necessity for them to do like obiviously no. Till their post graduation government is feeding them with a free education, inspite of doing all this, even now govt should feed them. It is very ridiculous.|
|Vidya said: (May 8, 2012)|
|Why not option C is correct? "Either or" indicates if I is correct II will be wrong and I is wrong II will be correct not both as both arguments cant be true or false together.|
|Prabh said: (Sep 5, 2012)|
|Yes Vidya, totally agree with you. Both of these answers cant te true or false together. One statement is stating something and the other is pointing out something else with a sort of contradiction to first. So C should be the answer.|
|Deepali said: (Oct 7, 2012)|
|Totally agree with Vidya and Prabh.
It is a choice to be made- either support them or not and any of these two actions could follow but certainly one of these will follow.
|Akhil said: (Jul 6, 2013)|
|Argument I also states it will provide some monetary help to kick start some self employment venture. ? Unemployment allowance is provided for monetary help. Not to start ventures. So Argument is void.|
|Vikas said: (Jul 31, 2013)|
|For conditional statements, either yes is correct or no. Then how both are correct here.|
|Zuber said: (Nov 28, 2013)|
|According to me only 1 statement is correct because it is for all the unemployed people and it gives some financial support but I don't think that 2 is the right answer.|
|Sandip said: (May 17, 2014)|
|I agree with @Zuber I think I is correct because it not only support financially to the unemployed people but also give some support for self employment for their living.|
|Clive said: (Jun 2, 2014)|
|The correct answer depends on one's philosophical leaning. I personally believe that an educated, capable individual should be resourceful enough to find employment. Assistive them through government financial aid, may be of help to some, but I believe that most of the benefits will go to government employees and administrative roles.
We will also create no incentive for other individuals who would just take advantage of such a system.
|Steve said: (Jun 28, 2014)|
|Why do we assume all unemployed graduates (especially youth) are poor and need financial assistance? Unemployment benefits should be need based. Most 'youth' still live at home. Giving them money will just prolong this.|
|Morn said: (Jul 3, 2014)|
|I agree with @Clive, the "correct" answer to this question is very subjective. I believe neither is strong enough- why give them money as an incentive? They would clearly take advantage of it. It would be better to offer actual job opportunities rather than give away money for (practically) free.
So, for me, neither I or II are strong. This question shouldn't really be here, or it should have multiple correct answers, though that's impossible sadly.
|Kkm said: (Aug 6, 2014)|
|I would say point I is invalid, as If government give them unemployment allowance (means granting little money on monthly/yearly basis to unemployed people for living their daily life) , but if he use that money to seek employment or to kick-start some 'self-employment', he will need a little bit more money/investment which would not be possible with the allowance, also he/she won't be eligible for the unemployment allowance as soon as he kick-start something or get self-employed. So I feel point I is ill logical.|
|Aman said: (Sep 27, 2014)|
|Well I is logical and strong on various basis but statement 2 may not be strong because all those pension scheme exist today are based on the premise that who need monetary support due to lack of employment must be given minimum monetary support to sustain their lives. As constitution guarantees for life.
But such amounts are not enough to live a comfortable life so question of being complacent to do anything further stands irrelevant and giving monetary support in forms of unemployment allowance is justifiable and statement stands strong while Statement 2 though right but not strong.
|Stoph said: (May 29, 2015)|
|I think the definition of a 'strong argument' needs to be defined a bit more, otherwise it's too subjective. The amount of money being offered in the allowance, for instance, could drastically alter the strength of either argument.|
|Ram said: (Jul 8, 2015)|
|Why should all the students be given unemployment allowance? It is not necessary that all of the unemployed would want to start up a business. Those who don't want to may misuse the money.|
|Naman said: (Aug 19, 2015)|
|I think C must be answer as both !&@ cannot follow together.|
|Aishik said: (Sep 3, 2015)|
|When do we use Both and when do we use either? I used to think that when the arguments are opposite in nature, like one is yes and the other is no and both the arguments are correct we use either 1 & 2 is strong, and when the arguments are similar in nature we use both 1 and 2 follows. As in this case I thought the answer should be either 1 and 2 follows because the arguments are opposite in nature. Please someone explain me.|
|Katya said: (Sep 17, 2015)|
|I think since it was mentioned that youth are EDUCATED (here we assume that they have graduated college, university), they by definition cannot promote idleness. If we omit word EDUCATED, both statements can be correct.|
|Rajnish said: (May 3, 2016)|
|The only argument first is right because educated people just want to start and they can manage themselves if they provide a little help and they would not sit idle because they are educated and educated people know their responsibility towards their families.|
|Hardik said: (Jul 10, 2016)|
|How is point II strong? Government allowance must not be big amount that they meet leisures of all unemployed. Also they will surely have determination in them to do something rather than sitting idle with the skills they have aquired in their life.|
|Orieo said: (May 12, 2018)|
|I don't think the first point is strong because if you see, this way unemployed people will sit home, make use of this scheme and earn money without doing a job.|
|Roy said: (Jul 13, 2018)|
Objectively they are contradicting statements so "Either/or" sounds like a good option but at the same time I might feel both the arguments aren't equally "strong".
|Sharauna said: (Mar 27, 2020)|
|More inclined towards option A because most people don't like to be dependent on someone else for money, considering the government is paying, the amount is going to be for bare necessities only so one would seek for a job for other relishing factors. The government Can start a program where they give jobs as per qualification and if they fail to provide with the job only then shall the fees be paid.|
|Varun said: (Oct 2, 2020)|
|I think such argument based contradictory questions should be Either or.
So, C should be the correct answer.
|Karthik said: (May 13, 2021)|
|From my point of view, A must be correct. Government should help the unemployed students financial to kick-start them. So that they settle in a good job.|
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.