Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

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.

Give answer:

  • (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.

22. 

Statement: Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government?

Arguments:

  1. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
  2. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

[A]. Only argument I is strong
[B]. Only argument II is strong
[C]. Either I or II is strong
[D]. Neither I nor II is strong
[E]. Both I and II are strong

Answer: Option B

Explanation:

Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong; Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favour to some people at the cost of government funds. So, argument I does not hold.

Abbertotanny said: (Sep 4, 2014)  
Can anyone explain me why argument A is wrong ? I don't get the answer given by them appropriate.

Mark said: (Jan 9, 2015)  
I guess if we focus on what is right and wrong in everyday matter, we would see that statement I would be giving too much power to a party that is already in office.

That's my best guess.

Trishul said: (Jul 10, 2015)  
What is the guarantee that genuine need for more cabinet ministers doesn't outgrow the restrictions imposed by argument II?

From both argument it seems best solution is that the ruling party should have some say in the no. of cabinet minister they want but there should also be some regulations there that should be subject to periodic review. Both arguments are strong and hence option E seems good for me.

Pranav said: (Jun 7, 2016)  
Argument A doesn't give reason for limiting the seats. It only says "they should have freedom" which is again opinion not a logical support.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.