Statement: Should there be a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products?Argument I: Yes, it is proven that tobacco causes cancer and other serious health issues.Argument II: No, it will lead to huge revenue loss for the government.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Scientific fact (I) is a strong health argument. Revenue loss (II) is a strong economic argument. Both deal with important but different perspectives.

Statement: Should children be given mobile phones before the age of 14?Argument I: No, it distracts them from studies and affects their mental well-being.Argument II: Yes, my neighbor's son uses it and he stood first in class.

Answer: Only I is strong. Argument I addresses a general logical concern verified by experts. Argument II is a superficial example of a single person and is a weak argument.

Statement: Should the government ban plastic bags completely?Argument I: Yes, they are non-biodegradable and harm the environment significantly.Argument II: No, what will happen to the plastic industries and current workers?

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Environmental protection (I) is a strong ecological argument. Livelihood and industry survival (II) is a strong socio-economic argument.

Statement: Should voting be made compulsory for all citizens?Argument I: Yes, it strengthens the democratic process and ensures everyone's voice is heard.Argument II: No, it would be difficult to implement in a large country like India.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Strengthening democracy (I) is a strong ideological argument. Logical implementation hurdles (II) is a strong practical argument.

Statement: Should firecrackers be completely banned during festivals?Argument I: Yes, they lead to high levels of air and noise pollution.Argument II: No, they are an integral part of tradition and joy.

Answer: Only I is strong. Pollution (I) is a scientific fact and a strong argument. Argument II is based on emotion/tradition and is considered weaker compared to a health/environmental hazard.

Statement: Should there be a uniform dress code for all colleges in the country?Argument I: Yes, it will eliminate the visible financial disparity between students.Argument II: No, college students should have the freedom to express their identity.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Eliminating disparity (I) is a strong social equality argument. Personal freedom (II) is a strong individual rights argument in a democratic setup.

Statement: Should junk food be banned in school canteens?Argument I: Yes, it leads to childhood obesity and nutrition deficiency.Argument II: No, children like the taste of junk food and will be sad.

Answer: Only I is strong. Health (I) is a strong, fact-based argument. Taste/Emotions (II) is a weak argument in a context of welfare.

Statement: Should government jobs be the first choice for youth?Argument I: Yes, they provide job security and various perks.Argument II: No, private sector offers more opportunities for innovation and growth.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Security (I) is a strong practical argument. Innovation/Growth (II) is a strong career development argument.

Statement: Should homework be abolished in primary schools?Argument I: Yes, it puts unnecessary pressure on young minds and reduces play time.Argument II: No, my grandfather used to do 5 hours of homework and he is very smart.

Answer: Only I is strong. Mental pressure/Play time (I) is a strong pedagogical concern. Argument II is a personal, anecdotal example and is weak.

Statement: Should celebrities lead social campaigns?Argument I: Yes, they have mass appeal and can influence public opinion easily.Argument II: No, celebrities only do it for publicity and money.

Answer: Only I is strong. Mass influence (I) is a strong factual argument about effectiveness. Argument II is a generalization and an assumption about motive, making it weak.

Statement: Should sex education be introduced in secondary schools?Argument I: Yes, it helps students understand physical changes and encourages healthy behavior.Argument II: No, it goes against our traditional cultural values and might encourage premature experimentation.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Scientific/Health education (I) is a strong developmental argument. Cultural concern/Social impact (II) is a strong ethical/social argument in several societies. Both are strong.

Statement: Should privatizing all public sector undertakings (PSUs) be the policy of the government?Argument I: Yes, it will infuse professional management and increase financial efficiency.Argument II: No, it will lead to layoffs and neglect of social responsibility toward the poor.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Efficiency (I) is a strong economic argument. Social welfare and job security (II) is a strong socio-economic argument. Both follow logically.

Statement: Should government subsidies on cooking gas be completely withdrawn?Argument I: Yes, the saved money can be utilized for building core infrastructure like hospitals and schools.Argument II: No, it will make essential fuel unaffordable for millions of below-poverty-line families.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Capital redirection (I) is a strong development argument. Social protection (II) is a strong welfare argument. Both are logically sound.

Statement: Should the death penalty be completely abolished globally?Argument I: Yes, it is inhumane and there's no proof it deters crime more than life imprisonment.Argument II: No, a heinous crime deserves the harshest possible punishment as a matter of justice.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Human rights and deterrence efficiency (I) is a strong ethical/scientific argument. Retributive justice (II) is a strong legal/moral argument. Both represent established strong perspectives.

Statement: Should the use of pesticide in agriculture be banned?Argument I: Yes, they pollute soil and water and cause long-term health hazards in humans.Argument II: No, without pesticides, crop yield will drop significantly leading to food shortage.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Health and Environment (I) is a strong ecological argument. Food security (II) is a strong survival/economic argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should there be a mandatory law to limit the number of children a couple can have?Argument I: Yes, the population explosion is causing extreme pressure on resources and environment.Argument II: No, it interferes with personal freedom and religious beliefs of individuals.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Resource pressure (I) is a strong statistical/economic concern. Individual rights (II) is a strong constitutional/human rights argument.

Statement: Should local elections be conducted using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) instead of paper ballots?Argument I: Yes, it speeds up the counting process and saves massive amounts of paper.Argument II: No, there are concerns about the hackability of machines which could undermine trust.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Efficiency and Ecology (I) is a strong practical argument. Electoral integrity (II) is a strong democratic argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should all major cities in India be connected via high-speed Bullet trains?Argument I: Yes, it will drastically reduce travel time and boost the efficiency of the national economy.Argument II: No, the huge capital required should first be spent on upgrading existing safety and sanitation in railways.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Economic efficiency/modernization (I) is a strong developmental argument. Prioritizing basic safety/welfare (II) is a strong capital-allocation argument. Both follow.

Statement: Should manual scavenging be completely mechanized even if it costs more?Argument I: Yes, it is a matter of human dignity and safety for the workers.Argument II: No, this job provides livelihood to a specific section of society who have no other skills.

Answer: Only I is strong. Human dignity and safety (I) is an extremely strong constitutional and moral argument. Argument II is weak because preserving an undignified and hazardous job is not a valid logical ground for livelihood.

Statement: Should exams like NEET and JEE be conducted multiple times a year?Argument I: Yes, it reduces the pressure of 'one bad day' and gives students more chances to improve.Argument II: No, it will make the entire education cycle chaotic and burdensome for governing bodies.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Student welfare and mental health (I) is a strong pedagogical argument. Administrative feasibility/Burden (II) is a strong practical argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should a country completely shift its energy production to 100% renewable sources within the next decade?Argument I: Yes, it is the only way to meet climate targets and ensure the survival of future generations.Argument II: No, the current technology for storage and grid stability is not yet capable of handling 100% intermittent sources without risking total economic collapse.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Environmental survival (I) is a strong existential argument. Technical feasibility and economic risk (II) is a strong practical/scientific argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should the patent system for life-saving drugs be abolished to make them affordable for everyone?Argument I: Yes, the right to life of millions of poor people is more important than the profits of a few pharmaceutical companies.Argument II: No, without patent protection, there would be no financial incentive for companies to invest billions in researching new cures, leading to a standstill in medical innovation.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Humanitarian/Ethical rights (I) is a strong social argument. Intellectual property and innovation incentive (II) is a strong economic/scientific argument. Both follow.

Statement: Should the government introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all citizens regardless of their employment status?Argument I: Yes, it provides a safety net against job losses due to automation and reduces extreme poverty immediately.Argument II: No, it will create a lazy workforce and the enormous fiscal burden will lead to hyperinflation and currency devaluation.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Social security in the age of AI (I) is a strong future-oriented argument. Fiscal stability and workforce motivation (II) are strong economic/psychological arguments. Both are strong.

Statement: Should all social media platforms be made liable for any user-generated content that spreads misinformation?Argument I: Yes, they have the algorithms to detect such content and must be held accountable for the real-world harm it causes.Argument II: No, it would force platforms to become over-censors, effectively killing free speech and the open nature of the internet.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Accountability for harm (I) is a strong legal/ethical argument. Preservation of free speech (II) is a strong constitutional/social argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should a global carbon tax be imposed on all industries to combat climate change?Argument I: Yes, it internalizes the environmental cost of production and incentivizes companies to shift to cleaner technologies.Argument II: No, it will disproportionately affect developing nations that are still dependent on fossil fuels for basic industrial growth.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. The Polluter Pays principle (I) is a strong economic/ecological argument. Global equity and developmental rights (II) is a strong geopolitical/social argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should the permanent membership of the UN Security Council be expanded to include more nations?Argument I: Yes, the current structure reflects the 1945 world order and lacks representation of modern geopolitical realities like India and Africa.Argument II: No, increasing members will lead to more veto deadlocks, making the council completely ineffective in times of crisis.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Democratic representation (I) is a strong geopolitical argument. Functional efficiency (II) is a strong institutional/practical argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should space exploration be banned until all basic human needs like hunger and disease are solved on Earth?Argument I: Yes, it is unethical to spend billions on space while millions are dying of starvation on the same planet.Argument II: No, space research leads to technological breakthroughs in satellite communication, weather forecasting, and medicine that benefit everyone on Earth.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Resource prioritization (I) is a strong ethical/moral argument. Technological spin-offs (II) is a strong factual/scientific argument. Both represent valid strong viewpoints.

Statement: Should all developed nations provide open-border immigration to people from war-torn regions?Argument I: Yes, it is a global humanitarian duty to protect the victims of conflicts they often had a role in creating.Argument II: No, uncontrolled immigration puts severe strain on a nation's infrastructure, social fabric, and national security.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Humanitarian duty (I) is an extremely strong moral/ethical argument. National stability and resource management (II) is a strong practical/security argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should cryptocurrencies be legalized and used as a standard mode of payment alongside fiat currency?Argument I: Yes, it democratizes finance, reduces transaction costs, and prevents central bank manipulation.Argument II: No, its extreme volatility risk and lack of a central regulatory authority threaten the entire banking system's stability.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Financial decentralization (I) is a strong technological/economic argument. Systemic stability and regulation (II) is a strong fiscal/legal argument. Both are strong.

Statement: Should AI be granted legal 'personhood' as it approaches human-level intelligence?Argument I: Yes, to ensure they have rights against misuse and to assign legal liability for the decisions they make autonomously.Argument II: No, legal rights are inherently linked to biological sentience, and granting them to software would dilute the status of human rights.

Answer: Both I and II are strong. Liability and ethical protection (I) is a strong legal/philosophical argument. Biological uniqueness of rights (II) is a strong ethical/ontological argument. Both are strong.

Home/Rajasthan 4th Grade Exam/Reasoning Ability/

Statement & Arguments

Master this topic with zero to advance depth.

Expert Answer & Key Takeaways

Mastering Statement & Arguments is essential for high-fidelity technical architecture and senior engineering roles in 2026.

Introduction

In Statement and Arguments, a 'Statement' is given followed by two 'Arguments'. Arguments can be in favor (Yes) or against (No) the statement. Your task is to distinguish between 'Strong' and 'Weak' arguments.

Strong vs. Weak Arguments

Strong Arguments: These are logically sound, based on facts/surveys, and deal with important aspects of the situation. They should be desirable and universally relevant.
2. Weak Arguments: These are based on emotions, look-alike examples (superficial analogies), personal opinions, or are too ambiguous/vague.

Checklist for Strong Arguments

Ask yourself:
- Is it a proven fact or scientific truth?
- Does it lead to an improvement/welfare?
- Is it logically related to the statement?
- Does it avoid being just an emotional appeal?

Course4All Reasoning Panel

Verified Expert

Aptitude & Logical Reasoning Experts

Specializing in banking and administrative exam patterns, our panel ensures every logical trick is simplified for students.

Pattern: 2026 Ready

Updated: Weekly

← Previous TopicCourse of Action

Next Topic →Cause & Effect

Found an issue or have a suggestion?

Help us improve! Report bugs or suggest new features on our Telegram group.

Statement & Arguments

Expert Answer & Key Takeaways

Introduction

Strong vs. Weak Arguments

Checklist for Strong Arguments

Course4All Reasoning Panel

Explore More Reasoning Ability

Cause & Effect

Mirror & Water Images

Paper Folding & Cutting

Figure Series

Found an issue or have a suggestion?