Statement and Argument - Solved Questions and Answers

Statement and Argument is a logical reasoning exercise where you evaluate whether given arguments strongly or weakly support/oppose a given statement.

Statement and Argument questions and answers are provided below for you to learn and practice.

Direction: For the given statement, which of the following arguments are justified.

Question 1:

Statement: Should there be a ban on plastic bags to reduce environmental pollution?

Argument 1: Yes, plastic bags are a major contributor to environmental pollution and should be banned.

Argument 2: No, plastic bags are inexpensive and convenient, making it hard for people to give them up.

Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 directly addresses the environmental harm caused by plastic bags. Argument 2 highlights convenience, but it doesn't address the long-term environmental impact.

Question 2:

Statement: Should schools switch to digital textbooks instead of printed ones?

Argument 1: Yes, digital textbooks are more cost-effective and eco-friendly than printed books.

Argument 2: No, digital textbooks can cause eye strain and might not be accessible to all students.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 focuses on the benefits of cost-effectiveness and environmental impact, while Argument 2 raises valid concerns about accessibility and health, making both arguments important.

Question 3:

Statement: Should the government impose a tax on sugary drinks to combat obesity?

Argument 1: Yes, taxing sugary drinks will discourage people from consuming unhealthy beverages.

Argument 2: No, the government should focus on education and awareness rather than imposing taxes.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 focuses on reducing consumption through financial incentives, while Argument 2 highlights the importance of long-term education, making both points relevant to the issue.

Question 4:

Statement: Should animals be used for scientific testing?

Argument 1: Yes, compulsory voting ensures that all citizens have a voice in their government.

Argument 2: No, forcing people to vote violates their freedom of choice.

Answer: Either I or II is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 supports the utilitarian aspect of animal testing for medical advancements, while Argument 2 raises ethical concerns, making both arguments valid but based on different perspectives.

Question 5:

Statement: Should voting be made compulsory in all democratic countries?

Argument 1: Yes, compulsory voting ensures that all citizens have a voice in their government.

Argument 2: No, forcing people to vote violates their freedom of choice.

Answer: Either I or II is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 advocates for more democratic participation, while Argument 2 stresses individual freedom. Both are valid based on different priorities.

Question 6:

Statement: Should junk food advertising to children be banned?

Argument 1: Yes, junk food advertising promotes unhealthy eating habits among children

Argument 2: No, children should be taught to make their own informed choices about what they eat.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 tackles the issue of harmful marketing, while Argument 2 focuses on empowering children through education, making both approaches important.

Question 7:

Statement: Should governments provide free healthcare to all citizens?

Argument 1: Yes, healthcare is a basic human right, and governments should ensure that all citizens have access to it.

Argument 2: No, providing free healthcare would lead to overuse of resources and increased taxes.

Answer: Either I or II is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 advocates for universal healthcare as a right, while Argument 2 raises concerns about resource allocation and fiscal sustainability, both offering valid perspectives.

Question 8:

Statement: Should social media platforms be held accountable for spreading misinformation?

Argument 1: Yes, social media companies should be responsible for monitoring and removing false information.

Argument 2: No, social media platforms are neutral and shouldn't be held responsible for content shared by users.

Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 addresses the responsibility of social media platforms in managing content, while Argument 2 claims neutrality, which doesn't fully address the negative impacts of misinformation.

Question 9:

Statement: Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

Argument 1: Yes, if individuals are allowed to vote and serve in the military at 18, they should also be allowed to drink alcohol.

Argument 2: No, lowering the drinking age could lead to increased health risks and alcohol-related accidents among young people.

Answer: Only Argument II is strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 focuses on legal adulthood rights, but Argument 2 addresses health risks and safety concerns, which are more directly relevant to the issue of the drinking age.

Question 10:

Statement: Should public transportation be free for all citizens?

Argument 1: Yes, free public transportation would reduce traffic, pollution, and promote social equality.

Argument 2: No, providing free public transportation would put a financial burden on taxpayers and decrease the quality of services.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Explanation:

Argument 1 points out the environmental and social benefits of free transport, while Argument 2 emphasizes the financial challenges and service quality, making both arguments relevant to the discussion.

Also Check:

➣ Test your knowledge- Quiz!