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.


Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India?


  1. No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country.
  2. Yes. It is democracy - let people decide whom to vote.

[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 A


Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.

Rajinder Kumar said: (Sep 30, 2014)  
Criminal offence may be done unknowingly so let the people decide to elect or not in democracy.

Tom said: (Nov 6, 2014)  
I disagree with this one. The second is a perfectly valid argument.

Harold said: (Dec 26, 2014)  
This is not a logical answer to the question. It is a personal opinion. The question states: 'You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument. '.

The second option was a stronger argument because it provides reasoning and justification for the claim whilst the first option only expresses a personal opinion. I believe that this is incorrect.

Say X said: (Jan 19, 2015)  
I would say that 2nd option is equally true. Sometimes there are false charges against some people who are doing their job honestly, only to malign them. I completely agree with what @Harold just pointed out.

Trishul said: (Jul 10, 2015)  
Because a person has criminal records in the past doesn't mean he has nothing to offer to the country. This logic is not sound maybe he has repented and wants to do better. It should be left to the voters to decide his worth.

Ali said: (Mar 10, 2016)  
Same thoughts, option two is stronger. If it's democracy, then let people decide.

Ifuba Ivan said: (May 22, 2016)  
Well, I believe option II is the strongest.

Someone can reform to be a good person after having been convicted and served the sentence.

Max said: (Aug 21, 2016)  
A is Downright illogical, the meaning of democracy is that people decide who their representatives are. So the absurd argument that "they cannot serve as the representation of the people" is ludicrous unless and until the people say so.

Akanksha said: (Jan 3, 2017)  
B is the perfect option. We are a democratic country after all.

Akanksha said: (Jan 3, 2017)  
B is the perfect option. We are a democratic country after all.

Ranjit said: (Mar 8, 2018)  
If the person is criminal and if he changed then he has a right to contest and moreover its a democratic rule.

My answer is B.

Saddam said: (Dec 6, 2018)  
Option B should be right.

Money Sugar said: (Feb 9, 2021)  
I agree on @Ali,

If it's democracy then let the people decide.

Democracy is popularly defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. So, I think argument II is also strong.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.