Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Should “literacy” be the minimum criterion for becoming a voter in India? Arguments : I. No. Mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity of an individual. II. Yes. Illiterate people are less likely to make politically wiser decisions of voting for a right candidate or party. III. No. Voting is the constitutional right of every citizen.

The correct answer is: B. Only I and II are strong.

Argument I is strong because it is based on the premise that mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity. This is a valid premise, as there are many examples of illiterate people who are politically mature and of literate people who are politically immature.

Argument II is also strong because it is based on the premise that illiterate people are less likely to make politically wiser decisions of voting for a right candidate or party. This is also a valid premise, as illiterate people may have less access to information about the candidates and parties, and may be less able to understand the issues at stake.

Argument III is weak because it is based on the premise that voting is a constitutional right of every citizen. This is a true premise, but it does not address the question of whether literacy should be a minimum criterion for becoming a voter. The right to vote does not mean that everyone is equally qualified to vote.

In conclusion, only arguments I and II are strong.