Question

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Hindi ought to be the official language of India. There is no reason for the government to spend money printing documents in different languages just to cater to people who cannot read or write Hindi. The government has better ways to spend taxpayers' money. People across India should read, write, or learn Hindi at the earliest.

United Nations members contribute funds, proportionate to their population, for the smooth functioning of the UN. By 2010, India, being the most populous nation on the planet, would contribute the maximum amount to the UN. Therefore, the official language of the United Nations should be changed to Hindi.

Which of the following is true?

• A. The point above contradicts the speaker's argument.
• B. The point above extends the speaker's argument.
• C. The point above is similar to the speaker's argument.
• D. The point above concludes the speaker's argument.

Hint:

Ask whether the new statement opposes, repeats, finishes, or simply carries forward the same pro-Hindi stand into a new area.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The first passage argues that Hindi should be India's official language so the government stops "wasting" money printing documents in many languages. The new statement makes a separate claim: because India would soon be the largest funder of the UN, Hindi should become the UN's official language too. We need to see how this new claim relates to the original argument.

1. The point above contradicts the speaker's argument: contradiction would mean the new statement denies or opposes making Hindi official somewhere. Instead, it pushes for Hindi to spread even further, into the UN, so it agrees with, rather than opposes, the original stand.
2. The point above extends the speaker's argument: the original claim was about Hindi's status inside India; this statement takes the same underlying push for Hindi and applies it to a new, bigger stage, the United Nations, using a fresh reason (funding share) that was never mentioned before. Taking an existing position and applying it further to a new domain is exactly what "extending" an argument means.
3. The point above is similar to the speaker's argument: "similar" would require the same kind of reasoning repeated. The original argument was about wasted printing costs, this one is about India's financial contribution to the UN, so the logic behind the two claims is different, and this is not simply the same reasoning repeated.
4. The point above concludes the speaker's argument: a conclusion would have to be the final outcome the original passage was building toward. The original passage was already complete in itself (Hindi as India's official language), so the UN point is a new, separate application, not the wrapping-up of the first argument.

Since the UN statement carries the same pro-Hindi position into a new and bigger context using a new justification, it is best described as extending the original argument, not contradicting, repeating, or concluding it.

Let's summarize:

• Contradiction needs opposition, similarity needs the same reasoning repeated, and a conclusion needs to be the final point of the same argument; none of these fit.
• Applying an existing stand to a new situation with a new reason is the definition of extending an argument.

So the correct option is "The point above extends the speaker's argument."