Below mentioned question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II.
Statement: Should 'education' be brought under the control of the Central Government like defence?
Argument:
I: No. Education is a state subject and it should remain with state.
II: Yes. This is the only way to establish uniformity in a growth of education across the states.
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Only argument I is strong
An argument is strong when it is directly related to the question and gives a real, important reason. It is weak when it is vague, exaggerated or rests on words such as “only” or “all” that cannot be justified.
Argument I: No. Education is a state subject and it should remain with state. Strong. It argues for leaving education with the states, which know the language, culture and needs of their own people; a subject like defence needs one central command, but education gains from being run close to the people.
Argument II: Yes. This is the only way to establish uniformity in a growth of education across the states. Weak. Central control is not the only way to bring uniform growth; common standards, national bodies and funding can do it while the states keep running education.
Note: Strictly, education is not a state subject today: the 42nd Amendment of 1976 moved it from the State List to the Concurrent List, on which both the Centre and the states can make laws. Argument I is still the stronger one because its point, that the states should keep running education, does not depend on that label.