Statement & Argument: Judging Strong vs Weak
What it is
You're given a debatable statement (often a policy question) and one or two "Yes/No, because..." arguments. You must judge which argument(s) are strong — not which conclusion you personally agree with.
The core method
A strong argument must be: (1) directly relevant to the statement, and (2) based on a reasonable, moderate, real-world consideration. A weak argument typically relies on absolute words ("all," "every single," "never," "always"), sweeping generalizations, superstition, or an irrelevant tangent.
Worked example
Statement: "Should all government schools introduce coding classes as a compulsory subject from Class 6 onwards?"
- Argument I: "Yes, because early exposure to coding builds problem-solving and computational-thinking skills useful across many future careers." — specific, realistic, directly relevant → Strong.
- Argument II: "Yes, because every single student in the world will eventually need coding skills to survive in the future." — relies on an extreme, unverifiable generalization ("every single," "survive") → Weak.
Only Argument I is strong.
Common traps
- Both arguments can take the same side (both "Yes") but still differ in strength — judge each one independently, never by its conclusion.
- An argument can sound persuasive or emotionally appealing and still be structurally weak if it overgeneralizes.
- Don't reward an argument just because it's true in your own experience — it must be a reasonable, moderate claim relevant to THIS statement.
What the exam tests here
Across the 3 papers we hold, this skill was asked 2 times, not every sitting — 2 of 3.
What it actually asked:
- judge which of two arguments is strong (2026)
- judging an assertion and reason about nuclear power (2025)
Worked example 2 — separating relevance from agreement
Statement: Should coaching institutes be regulated by a statutory body in India?
Argument I: Yes, because unregulated fee structures and false claims harm students and their families.
Argument II: No, because education is a matter of personal choice and the state should not interfere.
Argument I is strong. It is directly relevant to the proposal, names a concrete harm the regulation would address, and does not rely on an unstated leap.
Argument II is weak. "The state should not interfere" is a general slogan that would argue equally against food-safety rules or drug licensing. An argument that proves too much proves nothing about this proposal.
Notice that the verdict has nothing to do with whether you agree. A strong argument can support a position you dislike; a weak argument can support one you hold. The question is only whether the reason, if accepted, bears on the specific proposal.
Speed technique
Apply four tests, in this order, and stop at the first failure. Relevance — does it address this proposal or a different one? Substance — does it name a concrete consequence, or restate the proposal in other words? Universality — would the same words argue against almost any proposal? Assumption load — does it need two or three unstated steps to connect?
Arguments that appeal to what "other countries do", to tradition, or to an unnamed authority are weak by default in this format.
An argument beginning "Yes, because it will solve all…" is weak on the absolute claim alone.
Both arguments can be strong; both can be weak. The option set always allows all four combinations, so never let one verdict force the other.
Framings worth being ready for
- Two arguments, four options (I only / II only / both / neither) — the format both worked examples above use.
- Assertion and Reason, judged by an entirely different rule set (below). Of the papers we hold, one printed a strong/weak-argument item and one printed an assertion-reason item.
- A statement of proposed policy. As an authoring heuristic rather than a measured pattern: an argument naming a measurable effect usually beats one that does not.
Assertion and Reason
You are given two statements — an Assertion (A) and a Reason (R) — and asked which verdict fits. Work three questions in this order, and never jump to the relationship first.
- Is A true on its own?
- Is R true on its own?
- If both are true, does R explain A — is it why A holds, rather than just another true fact about the same subject?
The usual option set is: both true and R explains A; both true but R does not explain A; A true and R false; A false and R true. Almost every error happens at step 3, where two true statements about one topic get read as cause and effect. Test it by joining them with because and listening: "Nuclear plants need heavy shielding because fission products are radioactive" holds together; if the because sentence sounds wrong, R is not the explanation even when both statements are true.
Check yourself
- Should exams be held online? "Yes, it saves paper."
Show answer
Weak — trivial against the scale of the decision. - "No, because 40% of rural candidates lack reliable connectivity."
Show answer
Strong — concrete, specific, decisive. - "Yes, because it is the modern way."
Show answer
Weak — appeal to fashion, no consequence named.
Try it: Statement & Argument questions
Real questions from the PGCET MBA bank on exactly this skill. Pick an answer to see the full solution — the intuition, the worked steps, the faster methods and the traps.
Read the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and choose the correct answer from the given options: Assertion (A) : Water expands when it freezes. Reason (R) : All liquids expand when they change into the solid state.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option C
Judge (A) on its own first: water is one of the few substances that occupies MORE volume as ice than as liquid, which is why ice floats and why a full sealed bottle can burst in a freezer. (A) is true.
Now judge (R) on its own, without reference to (A): almost every other liquid contracts on solidifying, because its particles pack more closely in the solid lattice. The word 'all' makes the statement false.
Since (A) is true and (R) is false, the answer is option C. No question of explanation arises — a false reason cannot explain anything.
Statement: 'Should the municipal corporation provide free public Wi-Fi in all city parks and bus stands?' Arguments: I. Yes, because free public Wi-Fi would let commuters and visitors access maps, transit schedules and emergency services at no cost, directly improving safety and convenience in those public spaces. II. Yes, because every single city in the world already has free public Wi-Fi, so this city must have it too. Which of the arguments is/are strong?
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option A
Argument I is strong: it gives a specific, practical benefit (safety and convenience via maps/transit/emergency access) that is directly relevant to whether free Wi-Fi should be provided.
Argument II is weak: 'every single city in the world already has it' is an unverifiable, sweeping generalization used as a bandwagon appeal — the fact that other cities have a policy is not, by itself, a reason this city's residents would benefit.
So on whether the city should provide free public Wi-Fi in parks and bus stands, only argument I is strong, option A.
Statement: 'Should all cyclists in the city be legally required to wear helmets while riding on public roads?' Arguments: I. No, because transport studies in several cities that introduced mandatory helmet laws recorded a drop in overall cycling rates, which works against the public-health goal of encouraging more cycling. II. No, because wearing a helmet would spoil a cyclist's hairstyle before reaching the office. Which of the arguments is/are strong?
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option A
Argument I is strong: it cites a documented, relevant trade-off (a helmet law reducing cycling rates works against the broader public-health goal of promoting cycling) that bears directly on whether the law is a good idea.
Argument II is weak: a hairstyle concern is trivial and does not engage with the genuine merits (safety versus participation) of the proposed law.
So on whether cyclists should be legally required to wear helmets, only argument I is strong, option A.
Read the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and choose the correct answer from the given options: Assertion (A) : Food cooks faster in a pressure cooker than in an open pan. Reason (R) : Raising the pressure on a liquid raises the temperature at which it boils.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option A
Judge (A) on its own: a pressure cooker is used precisely because pulses and meat that take an hour in an open pan are done in a fraction of that time. (A) is true.
Judge (R) on its own: a liquid boils when its vapour pressure equals the pressure above it, so increasing that pressure requires a higher temperature. (R) is true as a statement of physics, independently of any cooker.
Only now ask whether (R) explains (A): the sealed cooker traps steam, the pressure rises, water therefore boils above 100 °C, and the food sits in hotter water — which is exactly why it cooks faster. (R) is the correct explanation, so the answer is option A.
Statement: 'Should the government provide a purchase subsidy for electric two-wheelers to individual buyers?' Arguments: I. Yes, because electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and every forward-looking nation must embrace them without delay. II. Yes, because independent buyer surveys show that the upfront price gap between electric and petrol two-wheelers is the single most-cited reason buyers choose petrol, and a subsidy directly closes that price gap. Which of the arguments is/are strong?
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option B
Argument II is strong: it cites specific survey evidence identifying price as the dominant purchase barrier and shows a direct causal link between the proposed subsidy and removing that exact barrier.
Argument I is weak: 'the future of transportation' and 'every forward-looking nation must' are vague, unsubstantiated slogans that do not engage with why a subsidy specifically would change buyer behaviour.
So on whether the government should subsidise electric two-wheelers, only argument II is strong, option B.
Answer above — every one shows its working.