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.

9. 

Statement: Should Indian scientists working abroad be called back to India?

Arguments:

  1. Yes. They must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.
  2. No. We have enough talent; let them stay where they want.

[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 D

Explanation:

Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.

Hardik said: (Sep 18, 2011)  
Is there any concrete strategy for having right answer for such a question ?

Aditya said: (Sep 6, 2013)  
The 2nd argument says, " we have enough talent, let them stay where they want", which emphasizes that we should respect the free will of people. Providing incentives or better prospects is a different matter and is only a factor influencing their will. So why should the 2nd argument be held valid?

Prashant said: (Mar 2, 2014)  
The obvious reasons why Indian scientists, engineers work abroad is because they get better facilities, money etc. I think it totally depends on a person where he/she wants to work, if the government really wants that the skilled engineers, scientists must work in India than they should create that opportunities for them so that they are motivated to serve their motherland instead of being lured by the high salary packages etc.

Kevin said: (Oct 27, 2019)  
I am finding this kind of question to be disturbing. I think it might be because I have not taken the right kind of philosophy class. I did take an online course at Coursera about "How to Think, Reason, and Argue" that might be helpful. That is the only place I've had any discussion of what constitutes a stronger or less strong argument in a context like this. This is certainly not merely logic, but applied logic, and but require us to understand the world in a particular way. In the first option the connector "must" sounds strong but it isn't, and there is much more reasoning that would be needed to connect that conclusion to the premises and/or reality.

I find the explanation offered helpful in understanding the 2nd option: that they are OK where they are doesn't address why it wouldn't be beneficial to have them return.

I will try to discuss the other confusing logic questions in comments too. The ones where newspapers report something or someone puts up a billboard are confusing (in the U.S. we have plenty of billboards that should not be respected). I mainly enjoyed the one where I got to think about whether there have to exist any vegetables in order to figure out whether some rain is vegetables.

Pankhuri said: (Apr 30, 2020)  
How the second option is valid? Please tell me.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.