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: The global economy is expected to face a slowdown next year.

Argument 1: Governments should increase spending to stimulate the economy.

Argument 2: Governments should reduce taxes to encourage consumer spending.

Answer: Both Argument 1 and Argument 2 are plausible, but Argument 1 provides a more direct response to economic slowdowns.

Explanation:

In times of economic slowdown, governments often use increased spending to stimulate demand and create jobs, which can counteract the downturn.
Argument 2 suggests reducing taxes to encourage consumer spending, which is also a valid approach but may take longer to have a noticeable effect compared to government spending, which can have more immediate impacts.

Question 2:

Statement: Overuse of social media among teenagers is negatively impacting their mental health.

Argument 1: Social media platforms should introduce age restrictions to protect young users.

Argument 2: Teenagers should be given access to more social media tools for educational purposes.

Answer: Argument 1 is more appropriate.

Explanation:

The statement highlights the negative impact of social media on mental health, and Argument 1 proposes a reasonable solution by introducing age restrictions to protect vulnerable users, such as teenagers.
Argument 2 might contribute to improving educational outcomes, but it doesn't address the negative impact of overuse, which is the core issue raised in the statement.

Question 3:

Statement: Many developing countries are facing a shortage of clean drinking water.

Argument 1: The government should focus on building more water treatment plants.

Argument 2: The government should focus on educating citizens about water conservation.

Answer: Argument 1 is a more immediate solution, while Argument 2 addresses long-term sustainability.

Explanation:

The statement addresses a shortage of clean drinking water. Argument 1 suggests building more treatment plants to provide clean water, which is a direct way to address the issue.
Argument 2 suggests educating citizens on water conservation, which is important for long-term water management but doesn't immediately solve the problem of water scarcity.

Question 4:

Statement: Crime rates in urban areas are on the rise.

Argument 1: More police presence and patrols should be implemented in high-crime areas.

Argument 2: Urban development projects should be focused on creating more jobs and reducing poverty.

Answer: Argument 2 is more effective in addressing the root cause.

Explanation:

The statement links rising crime rates to urban areas, and Argument 2 addresses the root cause of crime: poverty and lack of opportunity. By improving job prospects, poverty can be reduced, which can ultimately lead to a decrease in crime.
Argument 1 addresses the symptoms of crime, but increasing police presence may not be as effective if the underlying issues of poverty and unemployment are not addressed.

Question 5:

Statement: People are spending too much time on smartphones.

Argument 1: We should design smartphones that encourage less screen time.

Argument 2: People should practice self-discipline and limit their smartphone use.

Answer: Argument 2 is a more practical long-term solution.

Explanation:

While Argument 1 offers a technological solution, Argument 2 emphasizes individual responsibility, which is a more sustainable way to limit smartphone use.

Question 6:

Statement: The air quality in cities has been deteriorating.

Argument 1: We should reduce emissions from factories to improve air quality.

Argument 2: We should encourage the use of air purifiers in homes.

Answer: Argument 1 addresses the root cause of air pollution, while Argument 2 offers a solution to mitigate indoor pollution.

Explanation:

Argument 1 tackles the problem at its source by reducing emissions from factories. Argument 2 helps individuals mitigate the effects of poor air quality indoors, but it doesn’t address the broader issue of pollution in the environment.

Question 7:

Statement: Many people are not recycling their waste properly.

Argument 1: The government should enforce recycling regulations.

Argument 2: People should be educated on the importance of recycling.

Answer: Argument 1 provides a legal solution, while Argument 2 focuses on behavior change.

Explanation:

Argument 1 suggests a direct approach by enforcing laws, ensuring compliance. Argument 2 emphasizes long-term change through education, helping people understand the benefits of recycling, but may not have an immediate effect.

Question 8:

Statement: There is an increasing demand for renewable energy sources.

Argument 1: Governments should offer incentives to companies that invest in renewable energy technologies.

Argument 2: The government should impose higher taxes on fossil fuels to make renewable energy more competitive.

Answer: Argument 1 incentivizes innovation, while Argument 2 makes fossil fuels less attractive.

Explanation:

Argument 1 encourages investment in renewable energy by providing incentives, fostering growth in the sector. Argument 2 creates a financial shift, making renewable energy more cost-competitive compared to fossil fuels.

Question 9: Statement: "Traffic congestion is a growing issue in urban areas.

Argument 1: Governments should invest in public transport infrastructure to reduce car usage.

Argument 2: Governments should build more roads and highways to reduce congestion.

Answer: Argument 1 offers a sustainable, long-term solution, while Argument 2 may provide temporary relief.

Explanation:

Argument 1 promotes public transportation as a long-term, environmentally friendly solution. Argument 2 increases road capacity but may lead to induced demand, ultimately not solving congestion in the long run.

Question 10:

Statement: The use of single-use plastics is damaging the environment.

Argument 1: Governments should ban single-use plastics to reduce environmental harm.

Argument 2: Manufacturers should be encouraged to produce biodegradable alternatives to single-use plastics.

Answer: Argument 1 provides an immediate solution, while Argument 2 focuses on sustainable alternatives.

Explanation:

Argument 1 directly reduces plastic waste by enforcing a ban on single-use plastics. Argument 2 promotes innovation by encouraging biodegradable alternatives, which could provide a more sustainable long-term solution.

Also Check:

➣ Test your knowledge- Quiz!