Statement
Should adulteration in food staff be considered serious crime.
Arguments
I. Yes, the stuff may cause ill health and sometimes result in the death of the poor victims.
II. No, the thing that are mixed with food stuff are not really poisonous.

Both the arguments are weak.

Both the arguments are weak. Argument I is weak as it is totally hypothetical. Argument II is irrelevant.

None of the argument is strong because both the argument are based on hypothetical facts.

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.

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.

None of the argument is strong. Argument I is weak because if it is operating successfully in Western Countries, it may not necessarily succeed in India i.e., based on example. Argument II is irrelevant.

Only Argument II is strong because ban on political parties will definitely lead to an end of democracy.

Both the arguments are logical and directly related to the statement and hence, are strong arguments.

Argument I is strong as it provides a clear logic and is directly related to statement. Argument II is without logic and hence, is a weak argument.

Verdict of judge depends on evidences and pleading of advocate, hence Argument I is weak. Argument II is strong as false evidence can mislead the judge.