Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.