Discussion :: Statement and Argument - Section 1 (Q.No.55)
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.
|Sintu said: (Jul 28, 2011)|
|Why not both are strong?|
|Prerna said: (May 15, 2013)|
|Only 1st is strong as neighboring countries like China and Pakistan don't believe in non violence.|
|Harika said: (Jun 30, 2013)|
|Why the answer is not A. "No. Other countries in the world don't believe in nonviolence". Doesn't this statement strong? Can anybody explain?|
|Questions said: (Feb 4, 2014)|
|The question asked is the same as asking if India should be without a military force. Argument #1 says "NO" India shouldn't be without a military because other countries are not without military. This seems like a strong argument to me.|
|Shyam said: (Aug 2, 2014)|
|As asked by so many why the first argument is not strong.|
|Trishul said: (Jul 10, 2015)|
|Exactly as others said. How does 'India needs to have military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world' contradict "No. other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence" In fact it seems to strengthen it.|
|Abhishek said: (Aug 15, 2017)|
|Can anybody provide reason for D and not A?|
|Ken said: (Feb 16, 2018)|
|"Should India have no military force at all?", if you answer "yes". Then you don't think India should have a military force. If you answer "No" then you do think India should have a military force. Thus the statement "No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence. " both reach the same conclusion in this "correct answer" and provides its reasoning so it can not be wrong.
However; I feel that #2 is also correct, but this partially hinges on what constitutes a military (if you consider para-military to be military and the legal interpretations of "defence force" as used in Japan) , as well as what constitutes a strong argument and whether or not you have to accept the premise of the argument as being valid (that is, I can simultaneously see #II as having grounds for strong argument, after all a government "for the people by the people" should be able to act in accordance with its beliefs; and while I hold that true I also hold that a military is still required - and thus I hold that a strong argument does not necessitate that it be required to be absolutely true).
Although I do hold that this answer is logically incorrect as explained in the first paragraph, as the "Correct" answers explanation is not reconcilable with #1 being incorrect.
|Nush said: (Dec 5, 2019)|
|The answer 'Clearly, India needs to have the military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world. So, none of the arguments holds strong' really does roughly translate to option 1 so I don't get why you'd cut marks for that answer.
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.