Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Statement and Argument - Section 3 (Q.No. 33)
Directions to Solve

Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' arguments) and which is/are 'weak' arguments) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.


Statement: Should workers/employees be allowed to participate in the management of factories in India?


  1. Yes. It is the present management theory.
  2. No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
  3. Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
  4. No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.

Only I and II are strong
None is strong
Only II and III are strong
All are strong
None of these
Answer: Option
Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as literacy is an essential criteria to take proper decisions on policy matters regarding management of factories. Besides, workers, if involved in management, would surely be motivated to work more devotedly, thus enhancing productivity. So, both II and III follow. IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts given in II and III. So, IV also does not hold strong.
9 comments Page 1 of 1.

Andrew said:   2 years ago
Since when does employee involvement in the mgt of a company equate or translate to obtaining ownership in that company?

Is this to say that all managers are shareholders/owners of the companies in which they work?

Anyone explain, please.

Ben said:   7 years ago
Argument 2 is weak.

Illiteracy does not imply a lack of skill in problem-solving, pattern recognition, systems thinking, management of people, and so many other attributes that make a good manager. If an employee were exceptional in all of these other areas, it would be ill-advised for a management team to not utilize their assets. In addition, a strong management team utilises the best abilities of team members. Thus if one team member were lacking in a skill set, that deficit could be compensated for by organizing managerial roles accordingly. So, a worker who is illiterate my still have great value.

Examine the language used in the argument. "Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of ANY value. " The word "any" in this context is used as an absolute meaning they would be useless and have nothing to add to a management team. Absolute arguments must be comprehensively proven to make the argument "strong. ".

Argument 3 is weak.

"Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity".

Saying that employee that own a portion of their company are more productive thus bringing employees in factories into managerial roles to increase productivity is a weak correlation. In the argument, the reason for increased productivity may be from the ownership stake of employees that work on a factory line, and the far majority of employees may not even participate in a managerial role. The correlations are too weak to draw any conclusions.

Thus, none is strong.

Brad said:   7 years ago
Some hidden bias on the part of the question writer, perhaps? The question only asks if the WORKERS should PARTICIPATE in management, giving rise to two issues with argument II:

First, it is about workers as a group, so unless ALL workers are illiterate, the literacy of any individual worker is of diminished relevance.

Second, nothing is said about the manner of participation in management--it could entail consulting with workers on matters where literacy is wholly irrelevant, like scheduling shifts, or decisions on using different tools or equipment.

Nishith said:   8 years ago
How can we draw this, that they are illiterate and even though they are illiterate they cannot provide better management?

Trishul said:   8 years ago
'IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts given in II and III'.

I don't see how illiteracy has got anything to do with inability to negotiate a higher wage.

Also, higher productivity doesn't necessarily mean low wages. III doesn't affect IV. Germany has high productivity and high wage.

IV seems pretty strong to me because an employee-union will not sacrifice their self-interest and higher wages is in their self-interest.

Gytis said:   9 years ago
This sentence makes no sense to me:

No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.

Either it should be YES. Because literate people are good for management either NO. Because workers aren't literate.

Double D said:   1 decade ago
I don't believe II is a strong argument. Starters is you don't need to be literate to offer a creative and efficient contribution. Now if we look at the job description of management it is these; planning, organising, staffing, leading, controlling, coordinating. These things require something more innate than having the ability to read and write. Being able to read and write does not say anything about how they manage people, their organization abilities or there leadership ability. In most cases someone who does not like conflict, is introverted, withdrawn and can't even organize their own personal life but can read are write is going to be far more useless than someone who does those things very well but is illiterate. Think a literate INTP vs an illiterate ENTJ if you're familiar with myer briggs personality types.

Sharon Jonathan said:   1 decade ago
In many cases, though the workers are illiterates, they know more about the machines after working for a long time. In such cases, their knowledge can be used for effective utilization of the machinery and their help in managing the factory.

Vickash said:   1 decade ago
Here in the conclusion par thee is written that workers/employees are illiterate. How can we draw this that they are illiterate?

Post your comments here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.