Site navigation

Direction: In this question, a statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is strong. Statement: There is a wide debate as to whether it is better to be a vegetarian or a…

Question and options

Direction: In this question, a statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is strong.

Statement: There is a wide debate as to whether it is better to be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian. People in either camp have pretty much dug their heels in swearing by the benefits of being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian respectively. Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in a democratic country?
Argument I: Yes. It is expensive and therefore beyond the means of most people in our country.
Argument II: No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country.
  1. Only argument I is strong
  2. Only argument II is strong
  3. Neither I nor II is strong
  4. Both I and II are strong

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: C - Neither I nor II is strong
I is weak: cost alone does not justify a total ban. II is weak: the sweeping claim that nothing should be banned in a democracy is untrue. Neither argument is strong.

Practice for these exams

  • CUSAT CAT Five-Year LL.B.

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Reasoning