Logical Reasoning Questions on Statement and Argument

Arguments:

Yes. We have to earn foreign exchange to pay for our imports. No. Even selective encouragement would lead to shortages.

Arguments:

Yes. Many such drugs require different doses and duration for Indian population and hence it is necessary. No. This is just not feasible and hence cannot be implemented.

Arguments:

Yes, Most of the energy sources used at present is exhaustible. No. Harnessing solar energy requires a lot of capital, which India lacks in.

Arguments:

No. This will create a political atmosphere in the campus. Yes, it is very necessary Students are future political leaders.

Arguments:

No. Kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India. Yes. This would help settle conflicts.

Arguments:

Yes. Rural people are creative. Yes. This would help to solve the problem of unemployment to some extent.

Arguments:

Yes. They will help in industrial development of the country. Yes. They will reduce the burden on employment market.

Arguments:

Yes. The young students should not be burdened with such examinations which hampers their natural growth. No. The students will not study seriously as they will get automatic promotion to the next class and this will affect them in future.

Arguments:

Yes. They must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all. No. We have enough talent; let them stay where they want.

Arguments:

Yes. It will mean taking employment at an early date. No. It will mean lack of depth of knowledge.

Arguments:

Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 lose their dynamism and will power. No. The life span is so increased that people remain physically and mentally active even up to the age of 80.

Arguments:

Yes. It will create job opportunities. No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.

Arguments:

Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.

Arguments:

Yes. Nothing can be achieved without proper planning. No. Too much time, money and energy is wasted on planning.

Arguments:

Yes. It will save a lot of paper which is in short supply. No. It is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving.

Arguments:

Yes. Colleges are in a better position to assess the student’s performance and therefore the degrees will be more valid. No. It is Utopian to think that there will not be nepotism and corruption in awarding degrees by colleges.

Arguments:

Yes. The prestigious people do not commit crime intentionally. No. It is our policy that everybody is equal before the law.

Arguments:

Yes. If everyone realizes the hazards it may create and cooperates to get rid of it, pollution may be controlled. No. The crowded highways, factories and industries and an ever-growing population eager to acquire more and more land for constructing houses are beyond control.

Arguments:

Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public. No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray.

Arguments:

Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism. No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.

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.

Arguments:

No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

Arguments:

Yes. They depict an alien culture which adversely affects our values. No. Foreign films are of a high artistic standard.

Arguments:

Yes. He has to pay less. No, paying instalments upsets the family budget.

Arguments:

Yes. It will help Doordarshan to have fair and impartial coverage of all important events. No. The coverage of events will be decided by a few who may not have healthy outlook.

Arguments:

No. It will also help in success of compulsory education programme. Yes. It will help to eliminate the adult illiteracy.

Arguments:

No. We have still not achieved the target for literacy. No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people.

Arguments:

Yes. It is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country. No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.

Arguments:

Yes. Trappers are making a lot of money; No. Bans on hunting and trapping are not effective.

Arguments:

No. All employees will lose their jobs, security and earning, what would they do? Yes. In a competitive world the rule is ‘survival of the fittest’.

Arguments:

Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants there. No. Rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities. So ? Why offer extra incentives!

Arguments:

Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting their vote. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

Arguments:

Yes. It is an essential concomitant in a capitalist economy. No. It leads to wastage of resources.

Arguments:

Yes. They will be able to devote more time for the country. No, nobody will contest election.

Arguments:

No, our need is ‘bread’ for everyone, we cannot follow western models. Yes. We cannot compete in the international market without equipping our children with computers.

Arguments:

Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed. No. The college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to the college.

Arguments:

Yes. This is the only way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent lives. No. Neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still engage in subversive activities.

Arguments:

Yes. It will help in eliminating tensions among the nations. No. Then, only the developed countries will dominate in the government.

Arguments:

No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it. Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many compared to the benefits it yields.

Arguments:

Yes. The victims must be saved at all cost. No. It encourages the kidnappers to continue their sinister activities.

Arguments:

Yes. It develops fanaticism in people. No, Religion binds people together.

Arguments:

Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity. No. Let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.

Arguments:

Yes. Fashions keep changing and hence consumption of cloth increases. No. Fashionable clothes are a person’s self expression and therefore his/her fundamental right.

Arguments:

Yes. With cold war coming to an end, such organizations have no role to play No, In the absence of such organizations there may be a world war.

Arguments:

Yes, it is very subjective in assessment. No. It is the only instrument to judge candidates’ motives and personality.

Arguments:

Yes. Looking to the miserable conditions in India, there is no other go. No. In India there are people of various religions and family planning is against the tenets of some of the religions.

Arguments:

Yes. It is an unnecessary burden on the wage earners. No. It is a good source of revenue.

Arguments:

Yes. Otherwise it would lead to unhealthy competition and our own industry would not be able to withstand that. 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.

Arguments:

Yes. This is the only way to improve the level of literacy. No. It would add to the already heavy burden on the exchequer.

Arguments:

No. This will considerably reduce the income of the government and will adversely affect the developmental activities. No. The local manufacturers will not be able to compete with the foreign manufacturers who are technologically far superior.

Arguments:

Yes. Such matter can only be solved by legal means. Yes. Only this will bring some relief to poor parents.

Arguments:

No. This is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group. Yes. This will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.

Arguments:

No. It will hamper the country’s future progress. Yes. It will reduce the educated unemployment.

Arguments:

Yes, Protectionism is over, everyone must get the bread on his/her own. Yes. The poor do not get any benefit because of corruption.

Arguments:

No. Other countries in the world do not believe in non-violence. Yes. Many Indians believe in non-violence.

Arguments:

I. No. The employees have the right to travel free. II. Yes. This will help railways to provide better facility.

Arguments : I. Yes. It will check most of the inter-communal biases. II. No. Ours is a secular state.

Arguments : I. Yes. Standard of education will improve. II. No. Standard of education will fall.

Argument : I. No. We have still not achieved the target of literacy. II. No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people.

Arguments:

I. Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants there. II. No. Rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities. So ? Why offer extra incentives.

Arguments:

I. No, our need is ‘bread’ for everyone, we cannot follow western models. II. Yes. We cannot compete in the international market without equipping our children with computers.

Arguments:

I. Yes. Looking to the miserable conditions in India, there is no other go. II. No. In India there are people of various religions and family planning is against the tenets of some of the religions.

Arguments:

I. Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level. II. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.

Arguments:

I. No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work. II. Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.

Arguments:

I. No. Such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and country. II. Yes. It is democracy – let people decide whom to vote.

Arguments:

I. Yes. It is very much necessary to do so to restore ecological balance. II. No. A total ban would harm timber based industries.

Arguments:

I. Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians. II. No. It will lead to an end of democracy

Arguments:

I. Yes, Colour television is a luxury item and only rich people buy them. II. No, Televisions are bought by the poor too.

Arguments:

I. Yes. Safety of the country is of prime importance. II. No. During peace, this money could be used for the development of the country.