I is strong because it is not desirable to spend money on non-operational airports. II is a weak argument because it does not pinpoint the corer issue and is a wrong way of arguing.
Both I and II are not strong. I is weak because it cares for witnesses but does not focus on the core issue -the impact of the move on our legal system . II is also weak because it assumes that change is something undesirable. Which is not necessary.
In order to reduce the pending work it is the need of the hour to reduce the leave. Hence I is strong . But II is a weak argument because it is based on vague reason.
I is weak because needs and circumstances of India might be different from those of USA and Japan. II is not a right way of arguing. Hence, II is also weak.
I is strong because it is based on an established fact. II is weak because it is not true.
Only I is strong. II is not strong because the statement does not indicate whether the executive is playing a role or not in collaboration with the law ministry .
I is weak because poor performance is all the more reason for developing infrastructure, as is clear from II. II is strong because it highlights the necessity of creation of infrastructure.
Argument I is strong because prevention is better then cure. Argument II is also strong.the alternative provided to kids is of no use if it harms the basic purpose of schooling and has bad psychological impact on the kids, minds.
Argument I is strong. Fraud must be kept away from education system. Argument II is also strong . Circumstances must not be created in which cases related to brain drain increase.
Argument I is strong because the very poor among the upper castes really need reservation. Argument II is weak because it is not true.
Both arguments I and II are true . The former represents positive features while the latter the negative ones.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.