Logical Reasoning · Statements & Arguments
Statement and Argument — Questions & Answers
Statement and argument questions give a proposal and arguments for and against it. A strong argument is relevant, directly linked to the proposal, and important — not a mere opinion.
- 5 solved questions
- Step-by-step AI walkthroughs
- How-to-approach tips
How to approach
Judge each argument on its own. A strong argument is relevant to the question, important and backed by a sound reason. A weak one is trivial, emotional, exaggerated or unrelated. A "Yes" and a "No" can both be strong.
Look for the one argument that gives a real, relevant reason for the side asked about (in favour or against).
Test I, II and III separately for relevance, importance and sound reasoning, then choose the option that lists exactly the strong ones.
Decide whether the argument is strong. If it is weak, name what goes wrong: an overgeneralisation, an appeal to feelings, an irrelevant point, or simply restating the proposal.
5 solved Statement and Argument questions
Statement: Should the minimum age for a car driving licence be raised to 21?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Younger drivers are involved in a higher share of serious accidents.
II. No. Many young people need to drive for their studies and work.
Which of the arguments is strong?Solution — answer E
Both hold. I gives a safety reason backed by accident data; II gives a real practical need. They point opposite ways, but each is relevant and important.
5 steps · reveal one at a timeStep 1: Understand the Statement
The statement asks whether the minimum age for a car driving licence should be raised to 21. We need to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented for and against this proposal.
Step 2: Evaluate Argument I
Argument I states that 'Younger drivers are involved in a higher share of serious accidents.' This argument highlights a significant safety concern. Reducing serious accidents is a valid and important societal goal, making this a strong argument in favor of raising the age.
Step 3: Evaluate Argument II
Argument II states that 'Many young people need to drive for their studies and work.' This argument points to the practical necessity of driving for many young individuals. Impeding their ability to pursue education or employment would have significant negative consequences, making this a strong argument against raising the age.
Step 4: Compare Arguments
Both arguments present valid and important points. Argument I focuses on public safety, while Argument II focuses on individual practical needs and opportunities. Even though they lead to opposite conclusions, each argument is relevant and carries significant weight in the discussion.
Step 5: The answer
So the answer is (E) I and II are both strong arguments. Both arguments address critical aspects of the issue – public safety and individual necessity – making them strong, relevant considerations.
Statement: Should CCTV cameras be installed in all city buses?
Which of these is the strongest argument in favour?Solution — answer C
Only the point that cameras deter crimes against passengers and help identify offenders gives a real safety benefit. The rest are false, about looks or preference, or copy another city.
4 steps · reveal one at a timeStep 1: Understand the Question
The question asks for the strongest argument in favour of installing CCTV cameras in all city buses. This means we are looking for a significant, positive reason for their installation.
Step 2: Evaluate Arguments
Think about what a strong argument for installing cameras would involve. It should offer a clear, tangible benefit directly related to the purpose of having cameras on public transport. Benefits like safety or security are usually strong.
Step 3: Identify Key Benefits
Consider which options provide a real, impactful benefit. Arguments based on false statements, mere appearance, personal preference, or simply copying others are generally weak. Look for an argument that addresses a core problem or offers a clear solution.
Step 4: The answer
So the answer is (C) Cameras can deter crimes against passengers and help identify offenders. This option provides a direct and significant safety benefit, which is the primary purpose of installing CCTV cameras.
Statement: Should the government build more cold-storage facilities for farmers?
Arguments:
I. Yes. A lot of fruit and vegetables rot before reaching the market.
II. Yes. Farmers could store produce and sell when prices are better.
III. No. Without a reliable power supply in villages, the facilities may not work.
Which arguments hold up?Solution — answer D
All three. I and II give real benefits, and III raises a genuine practical problem that must be solved.
4 steps · reveal one at a timeStep 1: Understand the Question
The question asks whether the government should build more cold-storage facilities for farmers. We need to evaluate if the given arguments are valid considerations for or against this proposal.
Step 2: Evaluate 'Yes' Arguments
Argument I states that produce rots, which cold storage would prevent. This is a clear benefit. Argument II suggests farmers could sell when prices are better, offering economic advantage. Both are strong reasons to build facilities.
Step 3: Evaluate 'No' Argument
Argument III points out that facilities need a reliable power supply to work. This is a crucial practical concern. If power is unreliable, the facilities would be useless. This is a valid problem that must be addressed.
Step 4: The answer
So the answer is (D) All three. Arguments I and II present clear benefits of building cold storage. Argument III highlights a genuine practical challenge that must be overcome for the facilities to be effective.
Statement: Should the town run more buses on its main routes?
Argument: "No. Buses always run empty."
How should this argument be judged?Solution — answer A
Overgeneralises. It is about the right issue, but "always run empty" is a sweeping claim: buses are often full at peak hours.
4 steps · reveal one at a timeStep 1: Understand the Argument
The question asks if the town should run more buses. The argument against it is, "No. Buses always run empty." We need to judge the quality of this argument.
Step 2: Evaluate the Claim
Consider the core claim: "Buses always run empty." Is this statement likely to be true in all situations? Think about different times of day, such as rush hour or school dismissal times.
Step 3: Identify the Flaw
The word "always" is very absolute. It suggests that buses are never full, which is a strong and often unrealistic claim. This makes the argument a sweeping statement that likely doesn't reflect reality.
Step 4: The answer
So the answer is (A) It overgeneralises (all, every, never, only). The argument makes a sweeping claim using the word "always," which is an overgeneralisation as buses are often full at peak hours.
Statement: Should helmets be compulsory for pillion riders on two-wheelers too?
Arguments:
I. Yes. A pillion rider is just as likely to suffer a head injury in a crash.
II. No. Wearing a helmet spoils one's hairstyle.
Which of the arguments is strong?Solution — answer A
Only I holds. I gives a real safety reason; II is a trivial concern set against a risk to life.
4 steps · reveal one at a timeStep 1: Analyze the Statement
The statement asks if helmets should be compulsory for pillion riders on two-wheelers. We need to determine which of the provided arguments is strong, meaning it is relevant and significant to the issue.
Step 2: Evaluate Argument I
Argument I states, "Yes. A pillion rider is just as likely to suffer a head injury in a crash." This argument highlights the safety risk faced by pillion riders, which is a significant and relevant concern for mandatory helmet laws.
Step 3: Evaluate Argument II
Argument II states, "No. Wearing a helmet spoils one's hairstyle." This argument focuses on a personal aesthetic or minor inconvenience. This concern is trivial when weighed against the serious risk of head injury or loss of life.
Step 4: The answer
So the answer is (A) Only I is a strong argument. Argument I presents a valid safety reason directly related to preventing serious injury, making it a strong argument. Argument II is based on a trivial concern that lacks significant weight.
Free to start
Get exam-ready on Statement and Argument
Generate fresh statement and argument practice sets in Test Studio, get step-by-step AI explanations the moment you slip, and close the gaps in Socrative Mode.
- Step-by-step AI solutions
- Fresh practice sets on demand
- Guided Socrative Mode drills