A statement is followed by four arguments numbered I, II, III & IV. Choose which of the argument(s) is/are strong argument(s)? Statement : Should the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor cycle be enforced strictly? Arguments : I No, each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion. II Yes, it is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all. III Yes, it is a necessity as the head is most sensitive/controlling organ, it should be protected by the helmet. IV No, it does not ensure safety of the head.

Correct — option (3), Only II and III are strong.

An argument is strong when it is directly related to the question and gives a significant reason that does not rest on a doubtful or sweeping claim. It is weak when it is beside the point, trivial, or built on such a claim.

The question is whether an existing rule, a helmet for both driver and pillion rider, should be enforced strictly.

Argument I says No: each individual knows how to protect his own life, so leave it to his discretion. The premise is a sweeping claim about every rider, and the question is about enforcing a rule, not about making it optional. I is weak.

Argument II says Yes: it is a rule, and rules should be followed strictly by all. The question is precisely about enforcing a rule, and II answers with the principle that a rule binds everyone. It is relevant and significant, so II is strong.

Argument III says Yes: the head is the most sensitive/controlling organ and should be protected by the helmet. That is the purpose of the rule itself. III is strong.

Argument IV says No: a helmet does not ensure safety of the head. That measures a helmet against a guarantee. Falling short of a guarantee is not a reason against enforcing protection. IV is weak.

So the answer is Only II and III are strong.

The idea to remember: an objection that a safety measure is not a complete guarantee, or should be left to choice, does not make a strong argument against enforcing it.

Why the others are wrong

• (1)
  None is strong — Option (1) rejects all four arguments. That discards argument III, which states the purpose of the rule: protecting the head.

  It also discards argument II, which answers the question of enforcement directly: a rule is to be followed by all. Both are relevant and significant, so they are strong.

• (2)
  Only I and IV are strong — Option (2) keeps the two No arguments, which are the weak ones, and drops both Yes arguments.

  I rests on the sweeping claim that each individual knows how to protect his own life. IV objects only that a helmet does not ensure safety, which asks for a guarantee rather than giving a reason against protection.

• (4)
  Only I and II are strong — Option (4) gets argument II right, as strong, but pairs it with argument I and leaves out argument III.

  I would leave a road-safety rule to each rider's discretion on a sweeping premise, so it is weak. III gives the reason the rule exists, protection of the head, so it is strong.

In statement-and-argument reasoning, a "Should…" question is followed by arguments for and against. Each argument is judged on its own, not by which side it takes.

A strong argument is directly related to the question, touches a significant aspect of it, and rests on a premise that holds.

An argument is weak when it is irrelevant, trivial, or depends on a doubtful or sweeping claim, or objects only that a measure is not a complete guarantee.

Several arguments on the same side can all be strong, and so can arguments on opposite sides.

Key facts

• A strong argument is directly related to the question, significant, and rests on a premise that holds.
• A weak argument is irrelevant, trivial, or depends on a doubtful or sweeping claim.
• Argument II is strong: the question is about enforcing a rule, and a rule is to be followed by all.
• Argument III is strong: it gives the rule's purpose, protecting the head.
• Arguments I and IV are weak: one rests on a sweeping claim about every rider, the other asks a helmet for a guarantee.

Common traps

• Treating "not a guarantee" as an objection. A helmet not ensuring safety does not make wearing one pointless.
• Accepting personal discretion as a strong No. Leaving a rule to each rider's choice is beside a question about enforcing it.
• Judging by side rather than by merit. Here both Yes arguments are strong and both No arguments weak; in another statement the split can differ.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A statement is followed by two arguments I and II. Choose which of the argument(s) is/are strong. Statement : Should wearing seat belts be made compulsory for passengers in the rear seats of cars? Arguments : I. Yes, a seat belt keeps a passenger from being thrown forward when the car stops suddenly. II. No, passengers in the rear seats are always safe.

  • (a)Only I is strong
  • (b)Only II is strong
  • (c)Both I and II are strong
  • (d)Neither I nor II is strong
  Answer(1) — I gives a direct and significant safety reason for the rule, so it is strong. II rests on the sweeping claim that rear-seat passengers are always safe, so it is weak. Option (2) reverses them, option (3) accepts II, and option (4) rejects I.
• practice — not a real PYQ

  A statement is followed by two arguments I and II. Choose which of the argument(s) is/are strong. Statement : Should the use of plastic carry bags be banned? Arguments : I. Yes, it is the fashion in many countries. II. No, a ban does not ensure that all plastic waste will disappear.

  • (a)Only I is strong
  • (b)Only II is strong
  • (c)Both I and II are strong
  • (d)Neither I nor II is strong
  Answer(4) — I rests on imitation, not on any effect of the ban, so it is weak. II asks the ban for a complete guarantee, which is not a reason against it, so it is weak too. Options (1), (2) and (3) each accept at least one weak argument.