Home / Study Notes / Reasoning / Strong and Weak Arguments: Relevance, Importance and Evidence

Strong and Weak Arguments: Relevance, Importance and Evidence

Relevant • Important • Backed by reason or data • Weak patterns to reject • Both sides can be strong

Banking 📅 Last updated: 2026-10-24

A statement and arguments question poses a proposal, usually starting with 'Should', and gives two arguments, typically one for and one against. You must decide which arguments are strong. You are not asked which side is right; you are judging the quality of each argument separately.

With two arguments, each is strong or weak, giving 2 × 2 = 4 basic outcomes: only I, only II, both, or neither.

Many papers add 'either I or II is strong', making 5 options. It is rarely correct, because the two arguments are judged independently, so a strong 'yes' does not make the 'no' weak.

  1. Relevant: it deals directly with the proposal in the question, not a side issue.
  2. Important: it concerns a significant consequence, such as safety, health, cost, fairness or the wider public, not a trivial one.
  3. Backed by reason or evidence: it rests on established facts, data given in the question, or reasoning most people would accept, not on personal feelings.

An argument that fails any one test is weak.

Worked example 1: only one strong

'Should mobile phones be banned in classrooms?' I. Yes, phones distract students during lessons. II. No, all developed countries allow phones in classrooms.

I is relevant, important and widely accepted. II compares with other countries and overgeneralises with 'all'. Only I is strong.

Worked example 2: both strong

'Should free midday meals be given in all government schools?' I. Yes, they improve children's nutrition and encourage attendance. II. No, they would put a heavy burden on the state budget.

Both arguments are relevant and concern important consequences. Both are strong, even though they reach opposite answers.

Most weak arguments fit one of a few familiar patterns. Spotting them quickly saves time.

  • Appeal to tradition: 'it has always been done this way' or 'it has never been done'.
  • Comparison with others: 'other countries do it', without showing why that matters here.
  • Extreme words: all, every, never, only, completely.
  • Superficial or emotional reasons: 'it sounds modern', 'people will be unhappy', 'it is a good idea'.
  • Restating the proposal: 'yes, because it should be done'.
  • Vague predictions: 'it will create problems', with no indication of what problems.

Worked example 3: neither strong

'Should the exam be held twice a year?' I. Yes, everyone likes more chances. II. No, it has always been held once a year.

I is a vague generalisation and II is an appeal to tradition. Neither is strong.

When an argument cites data given in the question, check that the numbers actually support the point. Data that bears directly on the proposal makes an argument strong.

Worked example 4: data makes the case

'Should helmets be compulsory for two-wheeler riders?' I. Yes, the data in the question show that 300 of the state's 400 two-wheeler deaths were riders without helmets. II. No, helmets are uncomfortable in summer.

That is 75% of the deaths, a serious safety pattern that bears directly on the proposal. Discomfort is a minor point next to safety. Only I is strong.

Worked example 5: reading the other side of the data

From the same data, 400 − 300 = 100 of the deaths were riders who did wear helmets. That does not make argument I weak: helmets need not prevent every death to make a large difference, and the argument concerns the much larger group without them.

The hardest arguments to judge are the ones that are relevant and true, yet minor. Ask how much the point would matter to a reasonable person deciding the proposal. Suppose the question is whether a city should build a new hospital, and one argument says 'No, the construction will be noisy for a few months'. The noise is real and connected to the proposal, but it is small and temporary compared with access to healthcare for years to come, so the argument is weak.

A quick routine helps: read the proposal, then for each argument ask the three tests in order (relevant, important, backed by reason), and stop as soon as one fails. Only then match your two verdicts to the options.

  • ✘ Letting your own opinion decide which argument is strong.
  • ✘ Thinking only one side can be strong.
  • ✘ Accepting appeals to tradition or to other countries.
  • ✘ Rejecting a true argument that is relevant and important just because it is simple.

Related topics: strengthening and weakening arguments, course of action and statement and assumptions.

Q1. Should all shops in the city be allowed to stay open 24 hours? Arguments: I. Yes, it will create jobs and serve people who work night shifts. II. No, the city's shops have never stayed open at night. easy

✅ Answer: (a) Only I is strong

💡 Explanation: I gives two relevant, important benefits. II only appeals to past practice; that something has never been done is no reason against doing it.

Q2. Should board exams give grades instead of marks? Arguments: I. Yes, grades sound more modern. II. No, marks allow finer distinctions between students for admissions. easy

✅ Answer: (b) Only II is strong

💡 Explanation: II points to a real, important consequence for admissions. I rests on how grades 'sound', which is a superficial reason.

Q3. Should private cars be restricted in city centres during peak hours? Arguments: I. Yes, it would reduce congestion and pollution where they are worst. II. No, it would cause hardship to people who have no convenient public transport. medium

✅ Answer: (c) Both are strong

💡 Explanation: Each argument is relevant, important and based on a sound reason. Opposite conclusions can both be strong; the question is about the quality of each argument, not which side wins.

Q4. Should plastic bags be taxed? Arguments: I. Yes, everything should be taxed. II. No, people will be unhappy. easy

✅ Answer: (d) Neither is strong

💡 Explanation: I is an extreme generalisation that says nothing about plastic bags. II is vague and would apply to any tax. Neither gives a reason specific and important enough to be strong.

Q5. Should helmets be compulsory for pillion riders on two-wheelers? Arguments: I. Yes, the state's data given in the question show that 160 of 200 pillion riders killed in road accidents were not wearing helmets. II. No, pillion riders do not drive the vehicle. medium

✅ Answer: (a) Only I is strong

💡 Explanation: I backs its case with data: 80% of the pillion riders killed wore no helmet, which bears directly on safety. II is true but irrelevant, because a pillion rider's head is just as exposed in a crash.

Q6. Should coaching centres be banned? Arguments: I. Yes, all coaching centres cheat students. II. No, a ban would be an extreme step; regulating fees and quality would address the concerns. medium

✅ Answer: (b) Only II is strong

💡 Explanation: I makes a sweeping claim about all coaching centres, which is an overgeneralisation. II is relevant and offers a proportionate alternative, so it is strong.

Can both a 'yes' and a 'no' argument be strong?

Yes. Strength is about the quality of each argument on its own, not about which side is right. Many real policy questions have serious points on both sides, and 'both are strong' is often the correct answer.

Is an argument weak if I disagree with it?

No. Your opinion does not matter. Judge only whether the argument is relevant to the question, deals with something important, and rests on a sound reason or fact. An argument you disagree with can still be strong.

All problems and solutions on this page are original. No outside facts are relied on; every numeric answer is recomputed by software before publishing.

How this page was prepared. Drafted with AI assistance (Claude (Anthropic AI model)) from the sources listed above. 5 calculations on this page were recomputed by software and matched. Automated checks also covered structure, internal links and duplicate text. Software checks cannot confirm facts. Reviewed by praveenkumar on 2026-10-24 against the sources listed above.

Found an error? Report it and we will correct the page.

← Reasoning