Directions: In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to…
2024
Directions: In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments. 'Strong' arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. 'Weak' arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The question below is 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.
Statement: Should trains have a coach reserved for men also?
Arguments:
I. Yes. According to right to equality, if women can have one, men should also have it. Some men may not feel comfortable around women.
II. No. No man will ever get on that coach, and one coach will straightaway get wasted.
Answer: A. Only argument I is strong — In Statement-Argument reasoning, a 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question, resting on a real, substantive basis rather…
- A.
Only argument I is strong
- B.
Only argument II is strong
- C.
Either argument I or II is strong
- D.
Neither argument I nor II is strong
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
In Statement-Argument reasoning, a 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question, resting on a real, substantive basis rather than a sweeping or unverifiable claim; a 'weak' argument is only tangentially related, or leans on an extreme, all-or-nothing assumption (such as 'never' or 'no one ever') that cannot really be verified.
Argument I invokes the constitutional right to equality - since women already have a reserved coach, the same right should extend to men - and adds a concrete concern: some men may feel uncomfortable travelling in a mixed compartment. Both points bear directly on whether a men's coach is justified, so Argument I is strong. Argument II, by contrast, predicts that literally no man would ever use such a coach and that it would therefore go to waste. This rests entirely on an absolute, unverifiable assumption about an entire population of commuters, with nothing concrete to support it, so Argument II is weak.
Checking the other options against this same standard:
'Only argument II is strong' fails because Argument II's basis is an absolute, unverifiable claim, not a directly relevant, substantiated one.
'Either argument I or II is strong' fails because the two arguments are not equally valid - only one meets the strong-argument test, so there is no genuine ambiguity to resolve.
'Neither argument I nor II is strong' fails because Argument I is directly relevant and grounded in a real principle, so it cannot be dismissed as weak.
So only Argument I is strong.