Statement: Should competitive examinations used to select candidates consist…

Concept

A strong argument is directly relevant to the policy question, has practical importance, and rests on a defensible premise rather than an unsupported absolute.

For a “should” question, test each argument independently: ask whether it addresses the proposed action and whether its reason would materially support or oppose that action.

Application

1. Argument 1 links objective tests with reliable assessment. Reliability is directly relevant to selecting candidates because consistent scoring supports fair comparison.

2. Argument 2 says that the number of questions is always very large. This is an unsupported absolute and does not show that objective testing is unsuitable; test length can be designed independently of question format.

Cross-check

If an objective test contains a moderate number of questions, the reason offered in argument 2 disappears, while the relevance of reliable assessment in argument 1 remains. This confirms that the two arguments do not have equal strength.

Contrast

• “Only argument 2 is strong” reverses the relevance test by relying on an unsupported claim about test length and excluding a direct assessment-quality consideration.

• “Neither 1 nor 2 is strong” overlooks the direct connection between reliable scoring and candidate selection.

• “Both 1 and 2 are strong” treats the unsupported question-volume claim as a necessary disadvantage of objective testing.

Result

Therefore, only argument 1 is strong.