Statement and Argument

Evaluate argument strength

100 practice questionsPage updated 27 Mar 2026Review metadata pendingPractice questions

Statement-Argument is a verbal reasoning topic where you evaluate whether given arguments provide strong or weak support for a proposed statement (usually a policy, plan, or opinion). A strong argument addresses the core issue with valid, practical reasoning, while a weak argument is vague, emotional, or irrelevant.

Key concepts

Structure of Statement-Argument Questions

Each question presents a Statement (S) followed by Arguments (I, II, etc.). The statement is typically a proposal, policy, or opinion. Arguments either support (favour) or oppose (against) the statement. Your task is to determine which argument(s) are 'strong' - meaning they provide valid, logical, and relevant reasons.

Characteristics of a Strong Argument

A strong argument must: (1) Be directly related to the statement's core issue, (2) Provide valid logical reasoning (not emotions), (3) Be based on facts, established principles, or practical considerations, (4) Address the actual consequences or implications of the proposal. It should not be based on assumptions, personal opinions, or irrelevant comparisons.

Characteristics of a Weak Argument

A weak argument typically: (1) Is based on emotions, sentiments, or personal likes/dislikes, (2) Makes assumptions not supported by facts, (3) Is too vague or general without specific reasoning, (4) Compares unrelated situations, (5) Merely restates the statement without adding reasoning, (6) Appeals to tradition ('it has always been this way'), (7) Uses extreme or absolute language without justification.

Common Answer Options

Standard options are: (A) Only argument I is strong, (B) Only argument II is strong, (C) Either I or II is strong (mutually exclusive), (D) Neither I nor II is strong, (E) Both I and II are strong. Note: 'Either I or II' is rare - it applies when both arguments are valid but contradict each other, making only one acceptable at a time.

Distinguishing Favour vs Against

Arguments 'in favour' support the statement by showing benefits, feasibility, or positive outcomes. Arguments 'against' oppose the statement by showing drawbacks, impracticality, or negative consequences. Both types can be strong if they provide valid reasoning. The key is the quality of reasoning, not the position itself.

Worked examples

Example 1

Statement: Should the government ban the use of plastic bags completely?

Arguments:
I. Yes, plastic bags are non-biodegradable and cause severe environmental pollution.
II. No, banning plastic bags will cause inconvenience to consumers and affect small businesses.

Solution

Analysis of Argument I: This argument directly addresses the environmental impact of plastic bags. The reasoning about non-biodegradability and pollution is factual and relevant. This is a STRONG argument.

Analysis of Argument II: This argument addresses practical concerns about implementation - consumer inconvenience and business impact. These are valid, practical considerations for policy decisions. This is also a STRONG argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments provide valid, relevant reasoning from different perspectives.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Example 2

Statement: Should there be a common entrance examination for all professional courses in the country?

Arguments:
I. Yes, this will reduce the burden on students who have to appear for multiple entrance exams.
II. No, each institution has different requirements and a common exam cannot assess all diverse needs.

Solution

Analysis of Argument I: This presents a clear benefit - reducing student burden. The reasoning is logical and addresses a genuine problem. This is a STRONG argument.

Analysis of Argument II: This raises a valid concern about the limitation of standardized testing for diverse institutional needs. The reasoning is practical and addresses implementation feasibility. This is a STRONG argument.

Conclusion: Both arguments present valid, relevant points about the proposal.

Answer: Both I and II are strong.

Example 3

Statement: Should the retirement age for government employees be increased from 60 to 65 years?

Arguments:
I. Yes, people are living longer and healthier lives now.
II. No, this will reduce job opportunities for young graduates.

Solution

Analysis of Argument I: While true that life expectancy has increased, this doesn't directly justify working longer. The statement is about retirement age for government employees, not life expectancy. The connection is weak - living longer doesn't mean one should work longer. This is a WEAK argument.

Analysis of Argument II: This directly addresses a significant consequence - the impact on youth employment. Government jobs are limited, and delaying retirement affects recruitment. This is practical, relevant reasoning. This is a STRONG argument.

Conclusion: Only argument II provides strong, relevant reasoning.

Answer: Only argument II is strong.

Example 4

Statement: Should India invest heavily in developing its own semiconductor manufacturing capabilities?

Arguments:
I. Yes, it will reduce dependence on foreign imports and strengthen national security.
II. No, it is very expensive and will take many years to develop.

Solution

Analysis of Argument I: This provides strong strategic reasoning - reducing import dependence enhances economic and national security. The semiconductor industry is critical for defense and technology sovereignty. This is a STRONG argument.

Analysis of Argument II: While cost and time are valid concerns, they don't negate the strategic importance. 'Expensive and time-consuming' doesn't make something bad - many important investments are both. Without showing that costs outweigh benefits, this is weak reasoning. This is a WEAK argument.

Conclusion: Only argument I provides strong reasoning.

Answer: Only argument I is strong.

Representative solved questions

See the kind of question in this topic before opening the full practice set.

Question 1

Statement: The city should ban the use of loudspeakers after 10 p.m. Arguments: I. Night-time noise disturbs students, patients, and elderly people. II. All forms of public celebration should be discouraged in modern cities.

Only argument I is strong
Only argument II is strong
Both arguments are strong
Neither argument is strong

Answer: A. Only argument I is strong

Explanation

Step 1: A strong argument is practical, relevant, and directly connected to the statement.\nStep 2: Argument I directly supports the ban by pointing to public inconvenience and harm caused by late-night noise.\nStep 3: Argument II is too extreme because it attacks all public celebration, which is not the issue here.\nAnswer: Only argument I is strong.

Sources and review notes

This is an AISEA-authored practice question.

Review status: accepted · Reviewed 2026-08-13 · structure and answer-key checks, editorial quality checks, duplicate screening

Question 2

Statement: Mobile phones should be prohibited inside examination halls. Arguments: I. Mobile phones can be used for cheating during exams. II. Many students feel bored during long examinations.

Only argument II is strong
Only argument I is strong
Both arguments are strong
Neither argument is strong

Answer: B. Only argument I is strong

Explanation

Step 1: Evaluate whether each argument is relevant to the proposal.\nStep 2: Argument I is strong because cheating prevention is a valid and direct reason for prohibition.\nStep 3: Argument II is weak because boredom does not justify allowing or disallowing phones.\nAnswer: Only argument I is strong.

Sources and review notes

This is an AISEA-authored practice question.

Review status: accepted · Reviewed 2026-08-13 · structure and answer-key checks, editorial quality checks, duplicate screening

Question 3

Statement: The government should increase fines for people who waste water. Arguments: I. Water is a limited resource and wastage harms society. II. People usually follow rules more carefully when penalties are strict.

Only argument I is strong
Only argument II is strong
Both arguments are strong
Neither argument is strong

Answer: C. Both arguments are strong

Explanation

Step 1: Check relevance and practicality of both arguments.\nStep 2: Argument I is strong because it explains why wastage is harmful.\nStep 3: Argument II is also strong because stronger fines can act as deterrents.\nAnswer: Both arguments are strong.

Sources and review notes

This is an AISEA-authored practice question.

Review status: accepted · Reviewed 2026-08-13 · structure and answer-key checks, editorial quality checks, duplicate screening

Statement and Argument

Key concepts

Structure of Statement-Argument Questions

Characteristics of a Strong Argument

Characteristics of a Weak Argument

Common Answer Options

Distinguishing Favour vs Against

Policy vs Opinion Statements

Worked examples

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Representative solved questions

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Common mistakes and useful habits

Ready to test your understanding?

Key concepts

Structure of Statement-Argument Questions

Characteristics of a Strong Argument

Characteristics of a Weak Argument

Common Answer Options

Distinguishing Favour vs Against

Policy vs Opinion Statements

Worked examples

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Representative solved questions

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Common mistakes and useful habits

Ready to test your understanding?

Keep building the same skill family.