In the question, one statement is given, followed by two arguments 1 and 2. You have to consider the statement to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given arguments, if any, supports the given statements.
Statement: Should mid-day meals in government schools be stopped?
Argument 1: No, it provides at least one meal to the underprivileged children.
Argument 2: Yes, it provides a wrong incentive to attend school.
- AOnly argument 1 is strong
- BOnly argument 2 is strong
- CBoth arguments 1 and 2 are strong
- DNeither argument 1 nor 2 is strong
Solution & Step-by-step Explanation
* Argument 1 is strong because providing nourishment to underprivileged children is a vital social welfare objective and a key purpose of the mid-day meal scheme.
* Argument 2 is weak because attending school (even if motivated partly by food) leads to education, which is a desirable outcome, not a "wrong incentive."
Therefore, only argument 1 is strong.
* Argument 2 is weak because attending school (even if motivated partly by food) leads to education, which is a desirable outcome, not a "wrong incentive."
Therefore, only argument 1 is strong.