Statement and Argument questions with answers and concepts
Learn statement and argument with concept notes and worked examples, then practise focused questions with explained answers. Build accuracy for placement and competitive aptitude tests before trying timed mode.
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.
Policy vs Opinion Statements
Policy statements propose actions (laws, rules, schemes) - arguments should discuss feasibility, impact, resource requirements, and consequences. Opinion statements express views - arguments should discuss validity of reasoning, evidence, and logical coherence. Practical arguments work better for policies; logical arguments work better for opinions.
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: All company meetings should have a written agenda circulated in advance. Arguments: I. Participants can prepare better when they know the topics beforehand. II. An agenda may reduce the chance of irrelevant discussion during the meeting.
Answer: C. Both arguments are strong
ExplanationStep 1: Argument I is strong because prior preparation improves meeting quality.
Step 2: Argument II is also strong because agendas help keep meetings focused.
Answer: 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
Question 2
Statement: The government should cap tuition fees in private schools. Arguments: I. Very high fees can make quality education inaccessible to many families. II. Private schools should have complete freedom to charge any amount because they are private institutions.
Answer: D. Both arguments are strong
ExplanationStep 1: Argument I is strong because affordability is a serious public concern.
Step 2: Argument II is also strong because institutional autonomy and market freedom are relevant considerations.
Step 3: Even though the arguments oppose each other, both can still be strong.
Answer: 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
Question 3
Statement: Newspapers should stop publishing exit polls before elections are fully completed. Arguments: I. Exit polls may influence voters in later phases of multi-stage elections. II. Readers enjoy prediction-based political content.
Answer: A. Only argument I is strong
ExplanationStep 1: Argument I is strong because it concerns fairness of the electoral process.
Step 2: Argument II is weak because public entertainment is not a sufficient ground on such a sensitive issue.
Answer: 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
Common mistakes and useful habits
- Focus on the REASONING quality, not whether you personally agree with the argument. An argument can be strong even if you disagree with its position.
- Eliminate emotion-based arguments immediately - any argument using words like 'feel', 'sentiment', 'tradition', 'always done this way' is likely weak.
- Check if the argument actually adds reasoning or just restates the statement. Restatements without new reasoning are weak.
- Be wary of arguments that make unfounded assumptions or use absolute terms (always, never, all, none) without justification.
- For policy questions, arguments about implementation feasibility, economic impact, and resource requirements are usually strong if based on practical logic.
- Don't reject an argument just because it mentions negative consequences - both positive and negative consequences can be valid reasoning.
- If an argument compares the situation to something completely different (other countries, other times, other contexts), it's usually weak unless the comparison is genuinely relevant.
- For 'Either I or II' option to be correct, both arguments must individually be strong AND mutually exclusive (one being true makes the other false). This is rare.
Ready to test your understanding?
Work through 100 questions with explanations after each answer.