शि

HSSC CET · Reasoning Ability

More Haryana government exams →

Statement and Arguments

Strong and weak arguments based on a statement.

Share with your prep group:WhatsApp

Test yourself on Statement and Arguments

5 practice questions for HSSC CET with instant answers — no signup, ~3 minutes.

Take the 5-question quiz →

Statement and Arguments

Overview

Statement and Arguments is a critical reasoning topic that tests your ability to evaluate whether a given argument logically supports or opposes a statement. In HSSC CET, these questions assess your analytical thinking—can you distinguish between a relevant, logical argument and one that is emotional, vague, or off-topic?

The key skill required is not personal opinion but objective evaluation: does the argument directly address the statement using facts and logic? Mastering this topic helps you score quickly since these questions follow predictable patterns once you understand the strong/weak argument framework.

Students must learn to set aside personal beliefs and focus purely on the logical connection between the statement and the argument. A "strong" argument isn't one you agree with—it's one that is both relevant to the statement and provides a solid, factual reason.

Key Concepts

  • Statement: A proposal, suggestion, or course of action presented for consideration (e.g., "Should schools ban mobile phones?").
  • Argument: A reason given either in favour (FOR) or against (AGAINST) the statement. Each argument must be evaluated independently.
  • Strong Argument: An argument that is (1) directly related to the statement, (2) based on facts or universal truths, and (3) addresses the practical consequences or core issue.
  • Weak Argument: An argument that is (1) vague or ambiguous, (2) based on emotions, assumptions, or personal opinions, (3) uses extreme words like "always," "never," "all," "none," or (4) is irrelevant to the statement.
  • Relevance Test: Ask yourself—"Does this argument directly address what the statement is proposing?" If yes, proceed to check strength.
  • Practicality Test: A strong argument considers real-world implications and benefits/drawbacks that can be reasonably expected.
  • Extreme Statements are Weak: Arguments using absolutes ("Everyone knows," "No one can deny," "It will definitely") are almost always weak because they cannot be universally proven.
  • Emotional Appeals are Weak: Arguments appealing to fear, pity, tradition without logic ("Our ancestors did it," "It would hurt sentiments") are weak.

Key Facts / Rules for Evaluation

  1. Strong Argument Checklist:
    • Is it relevant to the statement? ✓
    • Is it based on facts, not opinions? ✓
    • Does it discuss genuine advantages or disadvantages? ✓
    • Is it specific, not vague? ✓
  2. Weak Argument Indicators:
    • Contains "all," "always," "never," "only," "definitely"
    • Appeals to tradition, emotion, or popular opinion without logic
    • Discusses something unrelated to the core proposal
    • Makes assumptions that cannot be verified
  3. Common Question Formats:
    • "Which argument is strong?"
    • "Which argument is weak?"
    • "Both arguments are strong / Both are weak / Only I / Only II"
  4. Answer Options Pattern: Usually given as—
    • Only Argument I is strong
    • Only Argument II is strong
    • Both I and II are strong
    • Neither I nor II is strong
  5. Tip: Treat each argument independently. Argument I being strong does not affect your evaluation of Argument II.

Worked Examples

Example 1

Statement: Should the government ban plastic bags completely?

Argument I: Yes, plastic bags cause severe environmental pollution and harm marine life.

Argument II: Yes, plastic bags have been used for decades, so banning them would upset shopkeepers.

Solution:

  • Argument I: Relevant? Yes—addresses environmental impact of plastic. Factual? Yes—pollution and marine harm are documented facts. Strong.
  • Argument II: Relevant? Partially—mentions shopkeepers. But "used for decades" is an appeal to tradition, and "upset shopkeepers" is vague and emotional. Weak.

Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Example 2

Statement: Should all schools make physical education compulsory?

Argument I: No, all students hate physical activities and prefer academics.

Argument II: Yes, regular physical activity improves concentration and overall health of students.

Solution:

  • Argument I: Uses "all students"—an extreme generalisation that cannot be true. Also, preference doesn't determine policy merit. Weak.
  • Argument II: Relevant? Yes. Factual? Yes—health benefits of exercise are well-documented. Specific benefit mentioned. Strong.

Answer: Only Argument II is strong.

Example 3

Statement: Should India shift to a four-day work week?

Argument I: Yes, many developed countries are experimenting with it successfully.

Argument II: No, it would completely destroy the economy and no work would get done.

Solution:

  • Argument I: Relevant and factual—cites examples from other countries. Provides a reasonable basis for consideration. Strong.
  • Argument II: Uses extreme language ("completely destroy," "no work")—exaggeration without factual basis. Weak.

Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Common Mistakes

  • Judging by personal opinion → Always evaluate objectively. Even if you disagree with an argument, check if it's logically sound and relevant.
  • Ignoring extreme words → Words like "all," "never," "definitely," "everyone" usually make an argument weak. Train yourself to spot them immediately.
  • Confusing relevance with correctness → An argument can be factually correct but irrelevant to the statement. If the statement is about "banning cars" and the argument discusses "bicycles are healthy," it's weak due to irrelevance.
  • Accepting emotional appeals as strong → "It would hurt religious sentiments" or "Our culture doesn't allow this" without logical backing are weak arguments.
  • Not reading the statement carefully → The statement might ask "Should X be banned?" but the argument might support "X should be regulated." That's a mismatch—evaluate based on what's actually proposed.

Quick Reference

  • Strong = Relevant + Factual + Specific + No extreme words
  • Weak = Vague OR Emotional OR Irrelevant OR Uses "all/never/always"
  • Each argument is evaluated independently—don't let one influence the other
  • Appeals to tradition, popularity, or emotion without logic = Weak
  • Practical consequences (benefits/harms) stated factually = Strong
  • When in doubt, ask: "Does this argument give a solid, logical reason directly related to the statement?"

Drafted with AI from Shishya's syllabus outline for this exam · Reviewed by a person: not yet · Report an error

You read the notes — now try one

Statement: Should the government ban the sale of junk food in school canteens? Arguments: I. Yes, junk food causes obesity and health problems in children and the government should protect their health. II. No, children have the right to choose what they want to eat and banning junk food infringes on their freedom. Which argument(s) is/are strong?

Tap an option to check your answer.

👥 Study this together

Invite your prep group — read the same notes, then discuss doubts in this topic's shared room.

Invite to study

Need more? Ask Shishya

Shishya is your personal tutor for this topic. Pick a starter or open a free chat.

Open Shishya tutor →

Practice this topic

Take a full mock →

  • Q1 · Statement and Arguments · EASY

    Statement: Should the government ban the sale of junk food in school canteens? Arguments: I. Yes, junk food causes obesity and health problems in children and the government should protect their health. II. No, children have the right to choose what they want to eat and banning junk food infringes on their freedom. Which argument(s) is/are strong?

  • Q2 · Statement and Arguments · MEDIUM

    Statement: Should private companies be allowed to operate public transport buses in cities? Arguments: I. Yes, private companies can provide better service and efficiency due to competition and profit motive. II. No, private companies will only operate on profitable routes and neglect routes serving poor areas. Which argument(s) is/are strong?

  • Q3 · Statement and Arguments · MEDIUM

    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, and experienced employees can contribute more to the organization. II. No, increasing retirement age will block job opportunities for young people who are waiting for employment. III. No, older employees may not be able to adapt to new technologies and modern work methods. Which argument(s) is/are strong?

  • Q4 · Statement and Arguments · MEDIUM

    Statement: "The government should introduce mandatory health insurance for all citizens to reduce the burden on public healthcare." Arguments: I. Yes, because health insurance will ensure that people can afford medical treatment without financial stress. II. No, because it will impose an additional financial burden on low-income families. Which of the following is correct?

  • Q5 · Statement and Arguments · HARD

    Statement: "The state should provide free education up to the postgraduate level to all students." Arguments: I. Yes, because it will promote equality and ensure that talent is not wasted due to financial constraints. II. No, because it will put a huge financial burden on the state exchequer and may compromise the quality of education. Which of the following is correct?

Ask Shishya to explain these →

Notes generated on 11 Sept 2026