# Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Statement and Argument - Section 1 (Q.No. 55)
Directions to Solve

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.

55.

Statement: Should India have no military force at all?

Arguments:

1. No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence.
2. Yes. Many Indians believe in non-violence.
Only argument I is strong
Only argument II is strong
Either I or II is strong
Neither I nor II is strong
Both I and II are strong
Explanation:
Clearly, India needs to have military force to defend itself against the threat of other military powers in the world. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Discussion:
10 comments Page 1 of 1.

VictoriaCheng said:   4 months ago
1st is vague because we can't make assumptions about other countries. Comparison leads to a weak argument.

Nush said:   4 years ago
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.

Rectify.

Ken said:   6 years ago
"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.

Abhishek said:   6 years ago
Can anybody provide reason for D and not A?

Trishul said:   8 years ago
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.

Shyam said:   9 years ago
As asked by so many why the first argument is not strong.

Questions said:   10 years ago
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.