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 the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present? Arguments : I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources. II. Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay. III. No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.

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

Argument I is strong because it is based on the economic cost of holding elections more frequently. Argument II is strong because it is based on the democratic principle of accountability. Argument III is weak because it is based on the assumption that elected representatives need a long time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities. This assumption is not necessarily true, and there is no evidence to suggest that elected representatives who are elected for a shorter term are less likely to be effective.

Here are some additional details about each argument:

• Argument I is strong because it is based on the economic cost of holding elections more frequently. Holding elections is a costly process, and it requires a significant amount of money and resources. If elections were held every three years instead of every five years, the cost would be significantly higher. This would be a burden on the government and on taxpayers.
• Argument II is strong because it is based on the democratic principle of accountability. One of the key principles of democracy is that elected officials should be accountable to the people who elected them. If elections are held every three years, voters will have a more frequent opportunity to hold their elected officials accountable. This could lead to better government performance.
• Argument III is weak because it is based on the assumption that elected representatives need a long time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities. This assumption is not necessarily true, and there is no evidence to suggest that elected representatives who are elected for a shorter term are less likely to be effective. In fact, some studies have shown that elected representatives who are elected for a shorter term may be more focused on their constituents and on delivering results.