Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion
Discussion Forum : Statement and Argument - Section 1 (Q.No. 21)
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.
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.
21.
Statement: Should all the unauthorized structures in the city be demolished?
Arguments:
- No. Where will the people residing in such houses live?
- Yes. This will give a clear message to general public and they will refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings.
Answer: Option
Explanation:
The demolition of unauthorized buildings would teach a lesson to the unscrupulous builders and also serve as a warning for the citizens not to indulge in such activities in the future. This is essential, as unauthorized constructions impose undue burden on the city's infrastructure. So, only argument II holds strong.
Discussion:
10 comments Page 1 of 1.
Hana said:
4 months ago
Yes, demolishing unauthorized buildings is one thing, but where will the displaced residents go?
Not everyone has a trust fund to finance a new home, and we all know the reality of government compensation it's practically useless.
I understand the need to address unauthorized buildings, but the government must implement an effective solution. Demolition shouldn't be an issue if displaced residents are ensured access to necessities and relocated with consideration for factors like proximity to their workplaces.
So, it should be both.
Not everyone has a trust fund to finance a new home, and we all know the reality of government compensation it's practically useless.
I understand the need to address unauthorized buildings, but the government must implement an effective solution. Demolition shouldn't be an issue if displaced residents are ensured access to necessities and relocated with consideration for factors like proximity to their workplaces.
So, it should be both.
(1)
Stuti said:
4 years ago
@Purusottam.
I agree with it, but there's still a flaw. What if the people residing in these unauthorized places would be desperately helpless? We cannot know people's situations. Shouldn't both the arguments be vague?
I agree with it, but there's still a flaw. What if the people residing in these unauthorized places would be desperately helpless? We cannot know people's situations. Shouldn't both the arguments be vague?
(1)
Priyanka said:
5 years ago
Correct, Thanks @Purusottam.
Purusottam said:
8 years ago
The argument is strong. The first one is vague because the people who bought or resided in such houses, before buying or renting these they should know whether these are authorized or not. It is their own responsibility. As for the dealer, he came only for his business. So the people who are unable to maintain their seriousness they are more villain than the dealers.
Pulkit Kumar said:
9 years ago
A and B both are strong. The answer should be C, ie. Either one is strong because both are contradicting.
Trishul said:
1 decade ago
In my opinion only Argument A is strong.
The question asked: Should ALL unauthorized structure be demolished?
Why should all of them be demolished to drive a clear message home? Surely, only demolishing some selective ones is enough. One has to consider people dwelling there. It would be an administrative, political and social nightmare if every single one of them are driven to the streets.
Why should general public be punished for staying there due to lack of housing and exorbitant rates elsewhere? Punishment should be meted out to builders/developers who flout all regulations, and authorities who are very lax in their enforcement duties to begin with.
The question asked: Should ALL unauthorized structure be demolished?
Why should all of them be demolished to drive a clear message home? Surely, only demolishing some selective ones is enough. One has to consider people dwelling there. It would be an administrative, political and social nightmare if every single one of them are driven to the streets.
Why should general public be punished for staying there due to lack of housing and exorbitant rates elsewhere? Punishment should be meted out to builders/developers who flout all regulations, and authorities who are very lax in their enforcement duties to begin with.
(1)
Pranjal said:
1 decade ago
But what about the innocent people residing there. They have invested money. And moreover the middle class families who can not afford any other residency is the most suffer-able people.
Either it must be demolished before possession else any other primitive measures should be taken for the people residing there. I think both I and II are strong.
Either it must be demolished before possession else any other primitive measures should be taken for the people residing there. I think both I and II are strong.
Integrity said:
1 decade ago
Major unauthorized encroachments are done by big builders. Many ignorant people are lured into purchasing the flats. If such buildings are demolished what would happen to such people?
Nitin said:
1 decade ago
Both are strong. It depends on the circumstances where we apply this. If the Infrastructure include the slum area of the city, we simply can not demolish them just for the sake of teaching a lesson to these poor guys. Proper rehabilitation measures have to be done prior to this act. On the contrary if the infrastructure is a plush area, we can demolish them as these rich people must be taught a lesson for not encroaching in the Govt land.
Lilangel said:
1 decade ago
Why not 2nd argument holds strong?if all the unauthorized structures are demolished where will the people residing there will go?
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers