# Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

### Discussion :: Statement and Argument - Section 1 (Q.No.48)

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.

48.

Statement: Should there be a ceiling on the salary of top executives of multinationals in our country?

Arguments:

1. Yes. Otherwise it would lead to unhealthy competition and our own industry would not be able to withstand that.
2. No. With the accent on liberalization of economy, any such move would be counter-productive. Once the economy picks up, this disparity will be reduced.

 [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

Explanation:

In the absence of such a ceiling, the companies would be involved in a mutual competition of salaries, in a bid to attract the most competent professionals. So, argument I holds. Also, the prospects of increase in salary would encourage the officials to perform better in the interest of the company they serve, which would otherwise not be so if a ceiling is imposed. So, argument II also holds strong.

 Arunkumar said: (May 19, 2015) Statement I is not strong enough. Because, people of top posts deserves the high - end salary, for their talents & efficiency! It may leads only to the heal thier competition.

 Trishul said: (Jul 10, 2015) My argument against both the arguments. Argument I: When there is a ceiling in domestic market then top professionals will increasingly migrate to foreign markets where there's no such ceiling and they can earn much more which is at par with their capabilities. That would be a loss to domestic industry in general. This weakens the argument. Argument II: ' Once the economy picks up, this disparity will be reduced' there is no guarantee to this assertion. Without this statement argument II seems strong.

 Pallavi said: (Jun 29, 2019) Once the economy picks up, the disparity will be reduced, what does it mean here?