Q1. Should schools require students to wear uniforms? Arguments: I. Yes. School uniforms are a traditional practice in many countries. II. No. Some students prefer wearing different colours of clothing.Correct Option D … Explanation: A strong argument must be directly relevant to the issue and grounded in substantive reasoning, not in custom or personal taste. Argument I rests purely on tradition — the fact that something has long been practised says nothing about whether it is desirable or beneficial today, so it is a weak appeal to convention. Argument II rests on individual preference for different colours of clothing, a trivial and subjective consideration that does not engage with the educational, disciplinary or equity dimensions of the uniform question. Since neither argument establishes a real advantage or disadvantage of uniforms, options A, B, C and E all fail. Hence, option D.Q2. Should public libraries eliminate late fees for overdue books? Arguments: I. Yes, eliminating late fees increases access to books for poor students who cannot afford the penalties. II. No, people will stop returning library books altogether.Correct Option A … Explanation: Argument I is strong because it addresses the core purpose of a public library — universal access to knowledge. Fines fall hardest on low-income users, who may avoid borrowing altogether for fear of penalties, so removing them directly serves the institution's mission. Argument II is weak because it makes an extreme, unsupported leap: it assumes that fines are the only mechanism ensuring returns, ignoring alternatives such as borrowing suspensions, replacement charges and renewal reminders, and it overstates the outcome by claiming people will stop returning books "altogether". Since only I is substantive, options B, C, D and E are ruled out. Hence, option A.Q3. Should hospitals be required to publicly disclose their surgical complication rates? Arguments: I. Yes, publicly available complication rates allow patients to make more informed decisions when choosing where to undergo operation. II. No, comparing complication rates across hospitals without adjusting for patient risk profiles could unfairly penalize hospitals that treat sicker, higher-risk patients.Correct Option E … Explanation: Both arguments raise substantive, policy-relevant considerations. Argument I is strong because transparency about outcomes directly enables informed patient choice, which is the central justification for disclosure requirements in healthcare. Argument II is equally strong because it identifies a genuine methodological flaw — unadjusted raw rates penalise tertiary and referral hospitals that deliberately take on complex, high-risk cases, which can create a perverse incentive to refuse difficult patients. Neither argument is trivial, irrelevant or based on mere assumption, so options A, B and D fail; option C is inapplicable because the arguments are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Hence, option E.Q4. Should sports leagues eliminate mandatory pre-season physical fitness tests for veteran players? Arguments: I. Yes, veteran players have already proven their fitness through years of competitive play. II. No, fitness tests allow coaching staff to identify injury risks early and plan suitable replacements.Correct Option B … Explanation: Argument I is weak because past performance is not evidence of present physical condition — fitness declines with age, injury and time away from training, which is precisely why testing is conducted before each season. It confuses historical achievement with current capability. Argument II is strong because it identifies a concrete, ongoing function that the tests serve: early detection of injury risk and advance planning of replacements, both of which have direct competitive and player-welfare consequences. Since only II holds up, options A, C, D and E are eliminated. Hence, option B.Q5. Should universities record all classroom lectures and make the recordings available to enrolled students? Arguments: I. Yes. Students who miss a class because of illness or other legitimate reasons could review the lecture later. II. Yes. Students could revisit difficult portions of a lecture when preparing for examinations.Correct Option E … Explanation: Both arguments point to real, non-trivial educational benefits that follow directly from the proposal. Argument I is strong because illness and other genuine absences are unavoidable, and recordings prevent such students from permanently losing instructional content. Argument II is strong because revisiting complex material at one's own pace is a well-established aid to comprehension and revision, particularly for dense or technical subjects. Note that arguments on the same side of an issue can both be strong — the fact that both say "Yes" does not weaken either, so options A, B and D fail, and option C does not apply as the two are complementary rather than alternative. Hence, option E.Q6. Should restaurants be prohibited from providing single-use plastic takeaway containers? Arguments: I. Yes. Such a restriction could reduce the amount of plastic waste generated by takeaway food. II. No. Restaurants would have to order containers in several different sizes.Correct Option A … Explanation: Argument I is strong because reducing plastic waste is the very objective the prohibition seeks to achieve, and the connection between banning single-use containers and lower plastic waste is direct and substantive. Argument II is weak because ordering containers in several sizes is a minor operational inconvenience — restaurants already stock multiple container sizes, and procurement logistics cannot outweigh a significant environmental harm. A strong argument must show real consequence, not administrative nuisance. Options B, C, D and E are therefore ruled out. Hence, option A.Q7. Should museums offer free admission to everyone every day? Arguments: I. Yes. Free admission would make museums more accessible to the public. II. No. Visitors who enter museums may spend more money in the museum gift shop.Correct Option D … Explanation: Argument I is weak because it is circular — saying that removing the entry fee makes entry more accessible merely restates the proposal in different words rather than offering an independent reason, and it ignores the funding question of how museums would sustain conservation, staffing and operations without admission revenue. Argument II is weak on a different count: gift-shop spending is speculative, and in any case it is a point in favour of admitting more visitors, so it fails as an objection to free admission. Since one argument is a restatement and the other is both speculative and self-defeating, options A, B, C and E fail. Hence, option D.Q8. Should MBA colleges eliminate standardized test score requirements like CAT, NMAT, etc. from admissions? Arguments: I. Yes, standardized tests often reflect access to test-prep resources more than a student's academic potential. II. No, standardized tests provide the only truly nationwide, uniform benchmark for comparing applicants from vastly different high schools and grading systems. III. Yes, taking these tests is stressful for many students.Correct Option A … Explanation: Argument I is strong because it attacks the validity of the instrument itself — if scores track coaching expenditure rather than aptitude, the test fails at the job it is meant to do, which is a decisive reason to reconsider it. Argument II is strong because it identifies the practical function the test performs: with wildly varying boards, universities and grading conventions across the country, a common examination supplies the only standardised basis for comparison. Argument III is weak because stress accompanies virtually every selection process, including interviews, group discussions and profile-based screening; discomfort alone is not a reason to abolish a mechanism. Since I and II are strong and III is not, options B, C, D and E fail. Hence, option A.Q9. Should national parks charge higher entrance fees to non-resident foreign tourists than to domestic visitors? Arguments: I. Yes, domestic taxpayers already fund park maintenance through taxes, so higher foreign fees are fair. II. No, nationality-based pricing may be discriminatory and conflict with international agreements. III. Yes, higher foreign fees could generate more revenue for park maintenance and wildlife conservation.Correct Option D … Explanation: All three arguments are substantive and directly engage the issue. Argument I is strong because it rests on a recognised principle of fiscal fairness — residents have already contributed to upkeep through taxation, so a differential fee merely equalises the total contribution. Argument II is strong because differential pricing by nationality raises genuine legal and ethical concerns about discrimination and may conflict with treaty obligations on non-discriminatory treatment. Argument III is strong because additional revenue has a direct and demonstrable use in maintenance and conservation, which is the park's core mandate. Since no argument is trivial or irrelevant, options A, B, C and E all understate the position. Hence, option D.Q10. Should online retailers be required to disclose the carbon footprint of shipping for each delivery option at checkout? Arguments: I. Yes, this would let environmentally conscious consumers choose shipping methods that produce fewer emissions. II. No, calculating shipping emissions accurately would be complicated and time-consuming. III. Yes, the Earth is currently facing a climate crisis.Correct Option A … Explanation: Argument I is strong because it identifies the precise causal mechanism by which the disclosure requirement would work — informed consumers redirecting demand towards lower-emission delivery options at the point of decision. Argument II is weak because difficulty of implementation is an administrative objection, not a reason of principle; logistics firms already track route, weight and mode data, and complexity alone rarely justifies withholding material information. Argument III is weak because it is a broad truism: the existence of a climate crisis does not establish that this particular measure is effective, proportionate or appropriate, and such general appeals can be attached to any environmental proposal whatsoever. Options B, C, D and E therefore fail. Hence, option A.Q11. Should the government heavily tax fast-food advertising aimed at children? Arguments: I. Yes. Fast-food advertising influences children's dietary choices, leading to a rise in childhood obesity. II. No. Fast-food companies provide millions of entry-level jobs. III. Yes. The tax revenue can be specifically earmarked for physical education programs in public schools.Correct Option D … Explanation: Argument I is strong because it establishes the harm the measure targets — advertising shapes children's dietary preferences at an age when they cannot critically evaluate persuasion, with a documented link to childhood obesity, which is a legitimate public-health justification for intervention. Argument III is strong because earmarking creates a direct, constructive use for the revenue that reinforces the policy's own health objective. Argument II is weak because it is irrelevant to the proposal: the tax falls on advertising expenditure aimed at children, not on the restaurants' operations or hiring, so employment levels are not meaningfully threatened, and it offers no answer to the health concern raised. Options A, B, C and E are therefore incorrect. Hence, option D.Q12. Should the legal retirement age be raised to 70 years in countries with ageing populations? Arguments: I. Yes, people are living longer, healthier lives and can remain productive for more years. II. Yes, raising the retirement age will alleviate the financial strain on national pension systems. III. No, forcing people to work longer will restrict job opportunities for younger generations entering the workforce. IV. No, retirement parties boost the local hospitality economy.Correct Option D … Explanation: Argument I is strong because rising healthy life expectancy is the demographic fact that makes a higher retirement age feasible in the first place. Argument II is strong because a longer contributory period and a shorter payout period directly relieve pension liabilities, which is the central fiscal rationale for the reform. Argument III is strong because it raises a real intergenerational trade-off — delayed exits can slow entry-level hiring and promotion pipelines for younger workers, a serious consideration in labour-market policy. Argument IV is weak and almost frivolous: incidental spending at retirement celebrations is a negligible economic effect and has no bearing on the merits of the retirement age. Options A, B, C and E therefore fail. Hence, option D.Q13. Should patent protections on life-saving pharmaceuticals be abolished to make them affordable globally? Arguments: I. No, without patent protections, pharmaceutical companies will have no financial incentive to invest in costly R&D for new drugs. II. Yes, this would allow generic manufacturers to produce cheap versions, saving millions of lives in developing nations. III. No, generic drug manufacturers use lower-quality packaging, affecting the safety and quality of medicines. IV. Yes, healthcare should be considered a fundamental human right rather than a profit-driven enterprise.Correct Option C … Explanation: Argument I is strong because the innovation-incentive problem is the standard and serious justification for pharmaceutical patents — without a period of exclusivity, firms may be unable to recover the enormous sunk cost of drug development. Argument II is strong because it identifies the direct benefit sought: generic competition sharply reduces prices and expands access in low- and middle-income countries. Argument IV is strong because it engages the underlying ethical question of whether essential medicines should be allocated by ability to pay, which is precisely what the proposal contests. Argument III is weak because it is a sweeping, unsupported generalisation — generics are subject to the same regulatory approval and quality standards as originator drugs, and packaging quality is not an inherent feature of generic manufacturing. Options A, B, D and E therefore fail. Hence, option C.Q14. A national coffee chain plans to replace disposable paper cups with reusable cups that customers can return at any location in exchange for a small deposit refund. Company executives project that this program will reduce the chain's annual disposable cup waste by more than half within two years. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument that the program will achieve its projected waste-reduction goal?Correct Option C … Explanation: The conclusion is a quantified prediction — more than half the waste eliminated within two years — so the strongest support is direct empirical evidence that the same mechanism has produced a comparable result under comparable conditions. Option C supplies exactly that: a similar chain using a deposit-return system achieved 55% reduction in eighteen months, matching both the magnitude and the timeframe of the projection. Option A concerns cost, which is irrelevant to waste volume and if anything raises doubts about sustaining the programme. Option B is weak because stated support for sustainability "in principle" routinely fails to translate into changed behaviour at the counter. Option D actually weakens the case by giving the company a financial reason to keep disposable usage high. Option E weakens it by suggesting customer resistance. Hence, option C.Q15. A bookstore plans to open a small branch inside a major railway station. Its management expects the new branch to increase the number of books sold because many commuters spend considerable time waiting for trains but currently have few opportunities to browse books. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?Correct Option B … Explanation: The argument rests on an unstated assumption — that waiting time converts into book buying. Option B validates precisely that link by establishing a positive relationship between longer waits and higher purchase likelihood, which is what makes a station location promising rather than merely busy. Option A is irrelevant because sales of stationery and magazines do not support the claim about books sold. Option C is irrelevant and arguably competes for the same idle time and spending. Option D concerns a different setting with different customer behaviour, so past residential success does not transfer to a transit location. Option E weakens the argument by suggesting demand for print may be lower among commuters. Hence, option B.Q16. A fitness centre is considering replacing annual memberships with flexible monthly memberships. Its manager argues that the change will improve customer retention. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the manager's argument?Correct Option E … Explanation: The conclusion is specifically about retention, so the strongest support identifies the actual cause of attrition and shows that the proposed change addresses it. Option E does this: if members are leaving because of temporary scheduling conflicts, a flexible monthly structure lets them pause and return instead of abandoning the membership outright, which is retention by definition. Option A speaks to pricing for frequent attendees, not to why members leave. Option B weakens the argument by pointing to customers who prefer the existing annual model. Option C establishes only competitive parity and does not show the change will retain anyone. Option D is unrelated to the membership structure. Hence, option E.Q17. A municipal council proposes converting an underused four-lane road into a two-lane road, with the two freed-up lanes dedicated to a protected bicycle path. The council argues this will reduce traffic congestion on the road because most current traffic will avoid the road and reroute to parallel streets rather than remain stuck in fewer lanes. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the council's argument?Correct Option A … Explanation: The council's reasoning depends entirely on displaced traffic being absorbed elsewhere. Option A destroys that assumption: if the parallel streets are already near capacity at peak hours, diverted vehicles have nowhere to go and will remain on the narrowed road, worsening rather than reducing congestion. Option B does the opposite and strengthens the argument by confirming spare capacity exists. Option C addresses cyclist safety, a separate benefit that does not bear on the congestion claim. Option D concerns budgeting and says nothing about traffic flow. Option E raises aesthetic objections, which are irrelevant to whether congestion falls. Hence, option A.Q18. An online streaming service announces that it will recommend content based on the viewing habits of users with similar demographics rather than each user's own history. Executives claim that this change will improve the recommendation accuracy by using data from many similar users. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the executives' claim?Correct Option C … Explanation: The executives assume that demographic similarity is a good proxy for taste similarity. Option C attacks that assumption at its root: if age and location are coarse categories within which individual preferences diverge sharply, then aggregating data across a demographic group will produce less accurate recommendations than using a person's own viewing history, which is the precise opposite of the claimed improvement. Option A is irrelevant, since subscriber growth says nothing about which signal predicts taste better. Option B notes what competitors do without addressing accuracy. Option D concerns interface clutter, a presentation issue. Option E raises computing cost, which is an operational concern rather than an accuracy one. Hence, option C.Q19. A restaurant owner plans to add more tables to the dining area. She predicts that doing so will significantly increase profits because the restaurant frequently has customers waiting for tables during the evening. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?Correct Option E … Explanation: The owner assumes seating is the binding constraint on how many customers the restaurant can serve. Option E identifies a different bottleneck: if the kitchen already cannot keep pace with current demand, adding tables will not increase the number of meals served — it will simply lengthen waiting times at the table and may damage service quality, undermining the predicted profit gain. Option B strengthens the argument by confirming the kitchen has headroom. Option C also strengthens it by showing demand is being lost for want of seating. Options A and D concern pricing and demand distribution across the week, neither of which challenges the seating-capacity reasoning. Hence, option E.Q20. Company Y implemented a strict "no emails after 6 PM" policy to improve employee mental health and work-life balance. After six months, a company-wide survey revealed that employee stress levels were actually 15% higher than before the policy was implemented. The management concluded that the policy itself is causing the increased stress. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens management's conclusion?Correct Option B … Explanation: Management's conclusion is causal, so the strongest support supplies a plausible mechanism connecting the policy to the observed rise in stress while ruling out coincidence. Option B does exactly that: the email restriction traps urgent client matters overnight, generating evening anxiety and a heavier morning backlog, which is stress caused by the policy itself. Option A weakens the conclusion badly by offering an alternative explanation — a 20% workload increase introduced at the same time. Option D also weakens it by casting doubt on whether the before-and-after figures are even comparable. Option C undercuts the claim that such policies inherently raise stress. Option E weakens it by showing an available workaround, which reduces the policy's supposed constraining effect. Hence, option B.
