Statement:
Should foreign collaborations in higher education be allowed without proper scrutiny?
Arguments:
I. No, no association should be allowed without proper scrutiny because sometimes these collaboration turn out to be frauds. There are cases where the association promises job securities and other facilities for students but which, in reality, are nothing but a shame.
II. No, our country is already facing the problem of 'brain drain'. Many foreign universities and institutes lure talented and hardworking students to join their courses which subsequently leads to 'brain drain' as they promise jobs in foreign countries.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Argument I is strong because the best talented persons must be given chance to make civil services more dynamic. Argument II is strong because taxpayers' money should be used to bring about good and desirable result.

Banning for a short duration will be beneficial in the long run because reproduction will increase the gross quantity of the fishes. Hence, argument I is strong . Argument II is also strong because increase in the price of fishes will cause inconvenience to the common people.

Both I and II are weak arguments. Because it is not prudent to change the national game on account of less recognition or dismal performance.