Don‘t miss the cloud behind the silver lining. The Class XII CBSE pass result has soared to an all-time high of 88.8%. The number of students scoring 95% and above has more than doubled. If only these higher marks were a reflection of students getting more skilled and more competitive. Instead, the odds are they simply mirror an assessment scheme relaxed to compensate students for the many disruptions originating in the pandemic. The goal of reducing student stress levels during this turbulent time is excellent and laudable. But it is a fallacy that high marks can accomplish this by themselves. The real stressor, after all, is shortage of opportunities. When every bout of grade inflation raises cut-offs for higher education even higher, it is no succour. That India‘s Gross Enrolment Ratio is only 27% compared to Indonesia‘s 36%, Thailand‘s 49% and the US‘s 88% is just one measure of the toll taken by our failure to build adequate colleges and universities. Licence raj continues to suppress autonomy and expansion in this sector. For example, a new national education policy is reportedly mulling at least 20% of students being able to attend private higher educational institutions through freeships and another 30% through scholarships, besides fee caps. On top of the stasis already wreaked by reservations, this would be disastrous. Browbeating the private sector to make up for public sector deficiencies is counterproductive. As the pandemic has underlined the key role of good government services in healthcare, so too is raising the standard of publicly funded schools and universities essential. What the students need is an ecosystem where government institutions deliver quality education and private options are plentiful. It is better prospects alone that will best alleviate students‘ stress. Meanwhile, crudely chopping syllabi will only worsen their disorientation and should be reconsidered.
[TOI Edit, Times of India Editorials, Dated July 15, 2020].
Which of the following statements weakens the argument that chopping the syllabi in the times of Pandemic will only worsen a student‘s disorientation and hence should be reconsidered?
Correct Answer :
All of the above.
Solution :
The correct option is All of the above.
Explanation / Reasoning:
The conclusion mentioned in the passage states that "crudely chopping syllabi will only worsen their disorientation and should be reconsidered." To weaken this argument, we need statements that suggest reducing or chopping the syllabus would not worsen disorientation or is actually beneficial/necessary under the circumstances.
Let's analyze each of the given statements:
1. "It does not matter even if syllabi is chopped. The students who don‘t want to study will even not study in the minimal syllabi structure even during the pandemic." — This counters the argument by implying that chopping the syllabus does not cause or worsen disorientation; students' engagement depends on their willingness to study rather than syllabus length.
2. "Students don‘t care about syllabi. They study only for marks and grades." — This weakens the claim that reducing syllabus disorients students by asserting that students focus on marks rather than syllabus depth, meaning a syllabus reduction won't disorient them.
3. "Reduced syllabi will help in achieving the teaching-learning targets in due time and hence won‘t put pressure on students." — This directly opposes the passage's view by showing a clear positive outcome of syllabus reduction: relieving pressure and enabling completion of educational targets on time, thereby preventing disorientation.
Since all three statements provide arguments or evidence that counter/weaken the passage's claim against chopping the syllabi, the correct choice is All of the above.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
