Both the argument are strong.
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.
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.
Both the arguments are logical and directly related to the statement and hence, are strong arguments.
Only Argument II is strong because ban on political parties will definitely lead to an end of democracy.
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.
Argument I is strong because insurance is meant to cover the risk and promotes savings. Argument II lacks clear logic.
Argument I is strong because a close companionship bridges the gap between parents and children. Arguments II is not supported by a positive logical aspect of the statement and hence, is weak argument.
Argument II is strong as cottage industries will definitely solve the problem of unemployment in rural areas. Argument I is not logical.
Both the arguments are not strong because both the arguments do not contain any logical.
If poor children are loved, cared for and provided with comforts of life, they will definitely respond strongly and positively in terms of respect of their parents. Argument II is not strong.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.