Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar? Arguments : I. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun. II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked. III. No. There is no such curb in western countries. IV. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.

The correct answer is D. Only I and IV are strong.

Argument I is strong because it is based on the principle of freedom of choice. Young people above the age of 18 are considered adults in most countries and are allowed to make their own decisions about their lives. This includes the decision of whether or not to drink alcohol. Argument IV is also strong because it is based on the principle of harm prevention. Alcohol can be harmful to young people, especially if they drink too much. By preventing young people from going to beer bars, we can help to reduce the risk of them drinking alcohol and harming themselves.

Argument II is weak because it is based on the fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because there are no such curbs in western countries does not mean that they are not necessary in our country. Argument III is also weak because it is based on the fallacy of irrelevant comparison. The fact that young people in western countries are allowed to drink alcohol does not mean that young people in our country should be allowed to do the same.

In conclusion, only arguments I and IV are strong.