An argument is a statement or series of statements in which a certain point of view us put up, expressing different opinions for or against something.
Different types of questions covered in this chapter are as follows
· Two Arguments Based Questions
· Three or More Arguments Based Questions
Argument is very important part of analytical reasoning as all possible types of questions from analytical reasoning like inferences, assumptions, course of action, syllogism, etc., are in some way related to argumentation. This is the reason why arguments are called backbone of analytical reasoning.
In simple language, argument is a point of view on a particular matter support by certain evidences. e.g., If one says that 'Saching Tendulkar is a great batsmen', then he will have to put some evidences to support and prove his point of view. But someone else may have opposite point of view i.e., 'Tendulkar is not a great batsman'. In this case, the person opposing the greatness of Tendulkar too, will put some evidences in support of his negation. Therefore, we can firmly say that an argument may be either in favour of or against a certain subject.
The candidate is required to check the force fullness of the given arguments i.e., if they are weak or strong.
Questions asked from this chapter are basically based on following format
Statement ………………..
Arguments I. Yes, ………………..
II. No, ………………..
A positive or negative point of an argument is a view on a certain subject, supported by evidences.
Technical Aspect of an Argument
In technical terms, an argument may be said to be a sequence of two or more phrases, clauses, sentences that includes a claim/conclusion. Such conclusion is arrived at with the help of one or more than one statement which may be called premise/proposition. Apart from this, an argument has hidden premises also and such hidden premises are called assumption.
Let us suppose a thrilling. T-20 cricket match is going on between India and Pakistan, India has already scored 185 runs in 19 overs and therefore, 26 runs are required to win the match in just 6 balls. No doubts, scoring 26 runs in 6 balls is a very-very difficult target and hence you are almost hopeless. But since 'Mahendra Sing Dhoni' is at the crease, there is a ray of hope and this is the reason you friend says to you.
Dhoni is a big blister, so India will win the mathc.
If you minutely think over the statement mentioned above, you find that the statement is in the form an argument (point of view) that proposes the following conclusions.
India will win the match.
But how this conclusion is arrived at? The answer is with the help of following supporting evidence or premise.
Dhoni is a big blaster.
if you give a serious look, you find that both conclusion and premise are connected by an assumption (which is hidden not explicitly stated) that is given below
A big blaster is able to score 26 runs in 6 balls.
Now, we can firmly say that the statement, 'Dhoni is a big blaster, so India will win the match' has three parts as follows.
Part I Dhoni is a big blaster.
Part II A big blaster is able to score 26 runs in 6 balls.
Part III India will win the match.
The foregoing example explains before us the basic characteristics of argument but also leaves some doubts live.
Q 1. Does an argument always has an assumption?
Q 2. Does an argument has only one premise always?
The answer for both the questions is 'No'.
Let us see the explanatory reply for both the questions Q. 1 and Q. 2.
Explanatory Reply for 1 and 2
A point to be noted here is that is not necessary that every argument has an assumption. Keep in mind, an assumption is the hidden premise (statement/sentence); it is not explicitly said because it is supposed to be communicated without saying in another words. Assumption is a missing link in the chain of logic and if an argument is complete in itself and does not have missing links, then it does not have any assumption.
Let us see the following argument having no assumption
India needs 26 runs in 6 balls to win the match, only a big blaster like Dhoni can do it. Dhoni is at the crease. So, India will win the match.
In the above argument, all the things have been said clearly and explicitly. There is no hidden premise and hence it can be said that an argument can be without any assumption.
Further, the reply for the Q.2 also exists in the same argument as it has four premises.
Let us see
Premise 1 India needs 26 runs to win the match.
Premise 2 Only a big blaster like Dhoni can do it.
Premise 3 Dhoni is at the crease
Premise 4 So, India will win the match
Now, we can firmly say that it is not necessary for an argument to have only one premise always but an argument can have more than one premise.
Steps to Check Force Fullness of Arguments
Checking forcefulness means to find out following
1. Is the given argument strong?
2. Is the given argument weak?
Now, to check the force fullness, we follow a four step plan as given below
Step I Doing preliminary screening.
Step II Checking the correctness of the argument.
Step III Checking the desirability in case of positive arguments and harmfulness in case of negative arguments.
Step IV Checking the proper connectivity of argument with the given statement,
Step I Doing Preliminary Screening
This is the first level test, At this level, one is required to detect certain kind of arguments that can be declared weak without much thinking. The weakness of such arguments are exposed by having a mere look and this is the reason that such arguments do not qualify for further tests (Steps II, III, IV).
Ambiguous Arguments
Such arguments leave doubtful and confused impression on our mind. In fact, it is not clear how such arguments are related to the given statement.
Ex 1 Statement Should education be made compulsory for the children upto the age to 14 yr?
Argument Yes, it will improve the level of life.
Argument Yes, it will improve the level of life.
Sol. This argument does not make it clear that how education upto the age of 14 yr will improve the level of life. Hence, this argument is ambiguous and comes under the category of weak arguments disqualifying itself from further tests.
Too Simple Arguments
Such arguments are in the form of small sentence, which is no supported by an facts or established motions. But absence of facts or established notions does not mean that they are ambiguous. Infact they are much clear and properly related to the statement but they are simple assertions and only because of this simplicity they are weak.
Ex 2 Statement One should eat, drink and make merry because tomorrow one has to die.
Argument No, this philosophy hardly enables us to do anything.
Sol. No doubt that this argument is property related to the given statement but it is substance less and only a simple assertion. Hence, it is a weak argument and does not qualify for further tests.
Superfluous Arguments
Such arguments only give a glance at the these given in the statement but do not do a deep down analysis of it. This is the reason they are weak and are not subjected to further tests.
Ex 3 Statement Faith is beneficial to the some extent but blind faith is dangerous.
Argument No, Both have their good points as well as bad points.
Sol. The given argument is superfluous as it slightly touches the theme but does not analyze it deeply. Hence, it is a weak argument which cannot qualify for next level tests.
Ex 4 Statement There should be loan on the import of foreign books.
Argument Yes, importing foreign books is useful.
Sol. This argument is also superfluous because of deep analysis of the theme. Hence, it is weak and disqualifies from the next level tests.
Questions Back Form
If the given argument is in the form of a question thrown back by the arguer, then it is declared weak.
Ex 5 Statement Should T-20 cricket be banned?
Argument Yes, why not?
Sol. Argument is in the form of a question thrown back by the arguer. Hence, it is weak and for this reason, disqualifies from the next level tests.
Step II Checking the Correctness of Arguments
Step II is the second level test. Arguments qualifying for this level test are those which pass the test at Step I. it means such arguments cannot be declared weak in preliminary screening. Further, if an argument is declared correct at second level test, it does not mean that it is strong. Infact passing the second level means qualifying for third level test (Step III). Hence, if an argument is declared correct in Step II, it goes for Step III test, otherwise it is declared weak and automatically disqualifies from being tested as Step III.
(i) An Argument will Pass Step II Test in the following Cases
If the Argument Favours an Established Fact
A given argument is correct, if it is an established fact that is said through the argument is correct. Point to be noted that an established fact may be scientifically established or it may be universally acknowledged.
Ex 6 Statement Are nuclear families better that joint families?
Argument No, joint families ensure security and also reduce burden of work.
Sol. Because of having argumentative substance 'ensuring security and reduction of burden', the argument cannot be rejected at preliminary level test (Step I test) and this is the reason, it will qualify for second level test (Step II test). At Step II we find this argument favours this very university acknowledged fact that joint family has more joined hands to carry the family. No doubt, more joined hands leads to less pressure of work for a single member, Further, if one member of a joint family goes through a bad phase, then there are so many members to support him which does not happen in case of a nuclear family. It means that a joint family provides a better security to its members. Hence, the given argument is correct and passes the second level test. It means it will be tested at third level test (Step III test).
If the Argument is Permitted to be Correct by 'Experience'
Sometimes, the given argument does not support any established fact but our previous experiences tell us that it is correct.
Let us see the example given below
Ex 7 Statement Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives?
Argument Yes, incentives are essential for attracting government employees.
Sol. The given argument cannot be ignored at preliminary screening (Step test) as it has substance of argument i.e., 'incentives are essential for attracting'. It means the argument cannot be rejected at Step I test and qualifies for Step II test.
At Step II, we find that our experiences tell us that incentives do lure people. Hence, the given argument will be correct at Step II test and thus will go for the third level test (Step III test).
If the Argument is Permitted to be Correct by 'Logic and Common Sense'
Sometimes a new type of argument comes before you. Such arguments are neither established facts nor can experiences be applied over them as in practice no such cases could have occurred. In such only your logic and common sense works.
Let us see the following example
Ex 8 Statement Should there be compulsory military training for all?
Argument Yes, it will bring a sense of discipline in the people.
Sol. The given argument cannot be rejected at preliminary screening (Step I test) as it has argument substance 'bringing sense of discipline'. Hence, it passes the Step I test. Further, our logic says that military training will definitely bring a sense of discipline in the people. It means it is correct at Step II test and therefore, goes for third level test, which is Step III.
If the Argument Supports 'Prevailing Notions of Truth'
Certain things/ideas are university accepted; they are acknowledged by society and this is the reason why they are considered as unquestionable notions of truth.
Infact, in many ways they have very much similarly with 'established facts'.
If an argument supports such ideas/notions, they are considered correct.
Let us see the example given below
Ex 9 Statement Should brother-sister marriages be permitted?
Argument No, incest is a sin.
Sol. Because of having argumentative substance 'incest is a sin', the given argument cannot be rejected at preliminary screening. Hence, it passes Step I test. Further, it is socially accepted notion that 'incest is a sin', it means this idea is a prevailing notion of truth, Hence, it would be declared correct at second level test (Step II test) and would go onward to be tested at third level test (Step III test).
(ii) An Argument will not Pass Step II Test and is Declared Weak
In the Following Cases
If the Argument Goes Against 'Established Facts
When an argument goes against an established fact, it will be rejected.
Let us see the following example
Ex 10 Statement Should we follow 'VBODMAS' rule while solving simplification based problems in arithmetic?
Argument No, it leads to the wrong answer.
Sol. The given argument has substance of argumentation-'VBODMAS' rule leads to the wrong answer.' Hence, if cannot be rejected at preliminarily screening, but just a second look makes it clear that this his argumentative substance goes against the very established fact that VBODMAS rule must be applied while solving simplification based problems in arithmetic as this is the proper way to obtain the correct answer. Hence, the given argument is rejected at Step II test. It means it is declared weak.
If the Argument is not Permitted to be Correct by 'Experience'
When our previous experience tells us that a given argument is not correct, then the argument is declared weak and therefore, rejected.
Ex 11 Statement Should love marriages be preferred to arrange marriages?
Argument Yes, love marriages are more stable.
Sol. Because of having argumentative substance 'the greater stability of love marriages', the argument passes the Step I test but just in a second look our experiences work and tell us that love marriages have been much more unstable than the arrange marriages. Hence, the given argument does not Step II test.
If the Argument is not Permitted to be Correct by 'Logic and Common Sense'
When our logic and common sense tell us that the given argument is not correct, then the argument is declared weak.
Ex 12 Statement Should India be serious about the indirect war from the part of Pakistan?
Argument No, it will promote international criticism.
Sol. 'Promotion of international criticism' is the substance of the given argument. Hence, the given argument passes the preliminary test (Step I test). But at Step II test, it is declared weak because it suggests a compromise with unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, which also leads to a compromise with our fundamental duty. Why international community should oppose a nation for performing its fundamental duty? Hence, logically the given argument is weak.
If the Given Argument Violates 'Prevailing Notions of Truth'
When the given argument violates the prevailing notions of truth, it is declared weak and it therefore, rejected.
Ex 13 Statement Should brother-sister marriage be allowed?
Argument Yes, if both are mature and willing, then they cannot be prohibited from doing it.
Sol. 'Both are mature and willing' is the substance of argument and this is the reason why the given argument cannot be rejected in preliminary screening but when it goes for Step II, it becomes obvious that the argument violates the prevailing notions of truth that 'incest is a sin' as this argument promotes incest and is therefore, declared weak at Step II test.
If the Argument is Based on 'Assumption or Individual Perception'
In certain cases argument promotes/prohibits certain actions which are not universally accepted, which are not properly backed up by previous experiences or logic. Such arguments are based on assumptions or individual perceptions of the author. Such arguments are weak and are therefore rejected.
Ex 14 Statement Should certain educational qualifications be made compulsory for ministers?
Argument Yes, because illiterate person cannot take right decision.
Sol. We cannot reject the given argument in preliminary screening as it has substance of argument illiterate person cannot take right decision'. But at Step II test the argument is rejected because it is the assumption/individual perception of the author that an illiterate person cannot take right decision. In fact. There have been examples of illiterate persons taking perfect decisions.
If an Argument is Based on 'Examples or Analogy'
Keep this in your that example/analogy based arguments are 'Bad Arguments'. If someone did something in the past, it does not mean the same is pursuable. Such arguments are weak and are therefore, rejected.
Ex 15 Statement Should we like roses?
Argument Yes, Jawahar Lal Nehru liked roses.
Sol. 'Nehru liked roses' makes it obvious that the given argument has argumentative substance and therefore, it passes in preliminary screening (Step I test). But at Step II, it is rejected without much thinking because liking and disliking is totally an individual choice. Why should one like certain thing, if someone liked it in the past?
The given argument is example based and therefore falls under the category of bad arguments. In other words, if is a weak argument which cannot qualify for further tests.
Step III Checking The Desirability in Case of Positive Argument
(Harmfulness in Case Negative Argument)
This is the third level test for which those arguments qualify that were declared correct at Step II test. Point to be noted that correctness of an argument at Step II does not mean that argument is strong one but it does mean that the particular argument has been given a go ahead by Step I and II tests to be further tested at Step III. In other words, correctness of Step II test means the given argument is probably strong argument at Step II and it may be declared definitely strong, if it passes Step III and Step IV tests successfully.
Let us test each of the above mentioned arguments at Step III
Ex 16 Statement Are nuclear families better than joint families?
Argument No, joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work.
Sol. The above example has already passed Step I and II level tests. At Step III, it is obvious that security and reduction of work is desirable. Hence, this argument passes Step III tests also and qualities for final test (Step IV test).
Ex 17 Statement Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives?
Argument Yes, incentives are essential for attracting government employees.
Sol. Incentives means persuading to do certain things by giving some extra benefits. No doubts such benefits are desirable in case of the given argument. Hence, the given argument passes at Step III test also and goes forward to be tested finally at Step IV.
Ex 18 Statement Should there be compulsory military training for all?
Argument Yes, it will bring a sense of discipline in the people.
Sol. No doubt, discipline is a desirable thing. Hence, the given argument passes the Step III test and goes for final Step IV test.
Ex 19 Statement Should brother-sister marriages be permitted?
Argument No, incest is a sin.
Sol. After passing the Step I and II tests, this argument also passes Step III test and goes for final test at Step IV. Why? Because incest if harmful for society. It will promote immoral activities within family resulting in the downgrade of family values.
Step IV Checking the Proper Connectivity of Argument and Statement
At Step IV proper connectivity or proper relation between the argument and statement is checked. At this Step, those arguments are tested that pass Step I, II and III tests but the questions 'what is proper relation'? Infact, a statement and an argument are said to be properly related, if
(i) The argument pin points the main issue involved.
(ii) The argument is balanced.
Now, the question is 'what is balanced arguments'? Remember, a balanced argument should be well matched and in proportion with the intensity of issue given in the statement. e.g., If an argument is given in favour of cutting a potato with sword the such argument is completely imbalanced argument. Why so? Because if a knife is enough to cut potato, then why use a sword for it. Doesn't it seem ill matched? Definitely using a very big tool for a simple issue will be called imbalanced act. Similarly, using a very small tool for very big issue (like cutting a big tree with a knife) is also an imbalanced act.
Now, after understanding the meaning of connectivity or proper relation between argument and statement, we are ready for final level test for those arguments that passed Step III. Such arguments are in the following examples
Ex 20 Statement Are nuclear families better than joint families?
Argument No, joint families ensure security and also reduce burden of work.
Sol. At Step IV, we find that the given argument hits the main issue discussed in the statement and it is also well matched. Hence, it passes the final Step IV test to be declared strong.
Ex 21 Statement Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives?
Argument Yes, incentives are essential for attracting government employees.
Sol. The given argument pinpoints the main issue and also in proportion with the intensity of the issue i.e., well matched. Hence, it passes Step IV test to be declared a strong argument.
Ex 22 Statement Should there be compulsory military training for all?
Argument Yes, it will bring a sense of discipline in the people.
Sol. No doubt, the given argument put stress on the main issue but the argument is not balanced in this case. Why? In fact, it passes Step IV test to be declared a strong argument.
Ex 23 Statement Should brother-sister marriages be permitted?
Argument No, incest is a sin.
Sol. The given argument pin points the main issue 'brother-sister marriage' and also goes in proportion with the intensity of the issue. Hence, it is well-matched and is therefore declared strong at Step IV test.
Now it is clear that out of all the examples discussed in the theory part, only four arguments (in Example Nos. 20, 21, 22,23) could be tested at all these four Steps. Out of four, only three arguments (in Example Nos. 20, 21 23) passed all the tests were therefore, declared but argument in Example No. 22 could not pass Step IV test and was declared weak.
Directions (Q. Nos. 1-15) In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments. 'Strong' arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. 'Weak' arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the questions. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong argument and which is a 'weak' argument?
Give a answer
(a) If only Argument I is strong
(b) If only Argument II is strong
(c) If either I or II is strong
(d) If neither I nor II is strong
(e) If both and II are strong
1. Statement
Should school education be made free in India?
Arguments
I. Yes, this is the only way to improve the level of literacy.
II. No, it will add to the already heavy burden on the exchequer.
2. Statement
Should there be complete ban on manufacture of fire crackers in India?
Arguments
I. No, this will render thousands of workers jobless.
II. Yes, the fire cracker manufactures use child labour to a large extent.
3. Statement
Should young entrepreneurs be encouraged?
Arguments
I. Yes, they will help in the industrial development of the country.
II. Yes, they will reduce the burden on the employment market.
4. Statement
Should there be uniforms for students in the colleges in India as in the schools?
Arguments
I. Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.
II. No, college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to college.
5. Statement
Should the sale of all the toys made in China be banned in India?
Arguments
I. Yes, these are very cheap and hence, will put the local toy manufacturers out of business.
II. No, Indian toy are of much better
6. Statement
Should there be no examination upto Std IX in all the schools in India?
Arguments
I. No, students need to go through the process of giving examinations right from young age.
II. Yes, this will help students to think laterally and achieve their creative pursuits.
7. Statement
Should there be only a uniform rate of income tax irrespective of the level of income?
Arguments
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce the work of the officials of the income tax department.
II. No, this will reduce government tax collection to a large extent.
8. Statement
Should the sale of tobacco products be restricted to only a few outlets in each city/town?
Arguments
I. Yes, this will substantially reduce consumption of tobacco products.
II. No, those who want to purchase tobacco products should get them at convenient locations.
9. Statement
Should graduation be made minimum educational qualification for entry level jobs in any public sector organizations?
Arguments
I. Yes, graduates always perform better than non-graduates by virtue of their higher level of education.
II. No, there are quite a few people who cannot afford to remain unemployed till the completion of graduation and are capable of performing equally well as the graduate candidates.
10. Statement
Should the examination bodies for all university examinations permit the use of calculators?
Arguments
I. No, it is necessary for the students to know the methods of manual calculation to make their concepts clear.
II. Yes, manual calculations are no more required with extensive use of computers in all fields.
11. Statement
Should the knowledge of Hindi languages be made compulsory for all the employees of public sector organizations?
Arguments
I. Yes, it is necessary for dealing with people from the educationally backward strata of the society.
II. No, it is not necessary for every employee to have the knowledge of Hindi language.
12. Statements
Should it be made compulsory for all the private sector organizations to reserve quota for socially backward classes?
Arguments
I. No, the private sector should not be governed by the Government rules.
II. Yes, private sector organizations should also contribute in upliftment of socially backward classes.
13. Statement
Should the women be advised not to travel alone at night in view of the increasing incidences of rape and sexual abuse?
Arguments
I. No, instead the government should take measures to control such incidences.
II. Yes, it is difficult even for the police department to control such cases.
14. Statement
Should India make efforts to harness solar energy to fulfil its energy requirement?
Arguments
I. Yes, most of the energy sources used at present are exhaustible.
II. No, harnessing solar energy requires a lot of capital, which India lacks in.
15. Statement
Should children be prevented completely from watching the television?
Arguments
I. No, we get vital information regarding education through television.
II. Yes, it hampers the study of children.
Answers
1 (b)
|
2 (e)
|
3 (e)
|
4 (e)
|
5 (c)
|
6 (e)
|
7 (b)
|
8 (a)
|
9 (d)
|
10 (c)
|
11 (d)
|
12 (b)
|
13 (d)
|
14 (a)
|
15 (a)
|
