Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four…
202520252023
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 people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments:
i. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
ii. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
iii. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
iv. Yes. This will increase productivity.
Answer: D. Only III is strong — Concept: In a statement-argument reasoning question, a 'strong' argument must satisfy two conditions together — it must be directly relevant to the…
- A.
Only I and III are strong
- B.
All are strong
- C.
Only II and IV are strong
- D.
Only III is strong
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: In a statement-argument reasoning question, a 'strong' argument must satisfy two conditions together — it must be directly relevant to the statement/course of action under discussion, AND it must be substantial/significant to the debate (based on a stated fact, an established principle, or a widely accepted value like a fundamental right) rather than on a speculative, indirect, or 'could possibly' consequence. An argument that merely assumes what it wants to prove, or ties the decision to an unrelated or unverified side-effect, is 'weak' even if it sounds plausible.
Application: The statement asks whether over-qualified candidates should be debarred from jobs.
Argument i ('will aggravate educated unemployment') assumes debarring over-qualified people changes the total number of job vacancies — it does not; the same posts get filled either way. This is a speculative, indirect link, not a direct reason, so it is weak.
Argument ii ('creates complexes among employees and affects work') assumes a psychological reaction that is not guaranteed for every over-qualified employee — an unsubstantiated generalisation, so it is weak.
Argument iii ('goes against the basic rights of individuals') rests on the well-established, widely accepted principle that a person eligible for a post has the right to seek it. This is a direct and substantial reason grounded in a recognised value, so it holds strong.
Argument iv ('will increase productivity') assumes higher qualification automatically means higher output, but a job's requirements are already defined by its desired qualifications — extra qualification beyond that need not raise productivity. An unverified assumption, so it is weak.
Cross-check: Re-reading each weak argument confirms none states a directly relevant, substantiated reason tied to the debarring decision itself — each instead leans on an assumed side-effect. Only argument III appeals to a settled principle (individual rights) that directly bears on whether debarring is justified. So only III is strong, matching the option that says exactly that.