Argument I is strong as motivation is desirable action. Argument II is weak as it is superfluous. It is simply restating the question.
Argument I is strong because pollution control is highly desirable. Argument II is weak.
Argument I is strong as the ability to express gives groundness to one's education. Argument II is weak because to call a method 'the best' without giving any reason is simplistic assertion.
Argument I is strong because, if all the police officers are transferred after every two years, then it will create a lot of administrative hassles and it will also create lot of inconvenience to the police officers. The use of term 'only'in the Argument II makes it invalid.
Yes, Central Government should receive the major share because most of the development programmers are funded by Central Government and it also helps the Central Government to provide and manage the funds to poor states where funds are least collected.
Both the arguments are strong as encouragement to the young entrepreneurs will open up the avenues of setting up of new industries. Hence, it will help in industrial development. consequently, more job opportunities will created.
Argument I is strong as it takes a wise, reconciliatory approach to the problem. Argument II is also strong as water pollution, etc. may severally harm mankind.
Anything successful in other countries may not succeed in India. However, since English is much widely spoken language in the world today and hence, should be adopted is strong idea. Hence, Argument II is the strong argument.
The first argument is not related directly to the statement. But second argument that teaching religion helps to inculcate moral value among children is strong. Hence the Argument II is strong.
None of the argument is strong because both the argument are based on hypothetical facts.
Both the arguments are weak. Argument I is weak as it is totally hypothetical. Argument II is irrelevant.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.