Question:

Given below is a statement followed by two arguments. Read carefully and decide which of the arguments strongly support the statement.

Statement: Should military training be made compulsory for all college and university students?

Arguments:
(i) Yes, this will develop in them a sense of punctuality and discipline.
(ii) No, military training should be given only to those students who are physically fit.

Show Hint

Argument (ii) suggests a different rule but never says what harm the compulsory scheme would cause. Check whether that counts as reasoning or only as a preference.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Argument (i) is strong.
  • Argument (ii) is strong.
  • Both (i) and (ii) are strong.
  • Neither (i) nor (ii) is strong.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The proposal is compulsory military training for every college and university student. The word compulsory is the heart of it, since the debate is about applying the training to all students without exception.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
A strong argument must engage with the proposal as framed and give a solid reason for or against it. An argument that simply restates a limit on who should be covered, without giving a reason why the wider proposal is bad, is weak because it argues by assertion.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Argument (i) says compulsory military training builds punctuality and discipline. Military training runs on fixed timings, drill, uniform standards and instant obedience to orders, repeated daily. Students carrying those habits into study and work is a real and widely accepted effect of such training, and it applies to the whole student body, which is exactly what the proposal covers. The argument is on point and names a genuine benefit, so it is strong.
Argument (ii) says training should go only to physically fit students. Look closely at what it does. It does not explain why compulsory training harms anyone, and it does not show that unfit students would be hurt or that the programme would fail. It only asserts a different rule and leaves it there. An assertion dressed as an objection is weak. Even on its own terms it is thin, since a training scheme can grade its physical demands to what a student can handle.
So argument (i) stands and argument (ii) falls.

Step 4: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) treats the bare assertion as strong.
Option (C) needs both, and (ii) gives no reasoning to support its restriction.
Option (D) rejects (i) although discipline and punctuality are the accepted results of drill based training.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Only argument (i) is strong, so the answer is option (A).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Logical Reasoning Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Statements and Arguments Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions