Sometimes people in hurry prefer catching the train although they have no intention to travel without paying . Such people will buy ticket. So I is strong . Revenue earning could be more than that of existing system. Which may supersede the extra costs. So II may not be strong.
Argument I is weak because it is vague. II is strong because superstition is not desirable.
Argument I is strong because cost-cutting is desirable, II is weak because illiteracy and lack of ability will be as much an impediment in a combined election as in separate elections.
Argument I is weak because it says virtually nothing. II is strong because distraction from studies is not desirable.
I is an absurd argument. It is not necessary that what fits others will fit us. II is a strong argument. India has to balance the competitive environment with some protection to domestic entrepreneurs. Even developed countries change their laws to protect their entrepreneurs.
Argument I lacks substance and is hence weak. That it is a ''flying coffin'' is evident from the statement itself. II is strong because it makes no sense to ban the aircraft when the responsibility lies somewhere else.
I is a weak argument because such an argument based on a single example may be deceptive. It is possible that the arguer is not taking into account several other mergers which have proved to be failures. II is strong because it presents a genuine disadvantage.
I is strong. Literature and media are often hailed as mirrors of life. If the mirrors doesn't show the dirt on your face, it would be difficult to wipe it clean. II is also strong : there are many such instances.
if only argument I is strong
I is strong: the more the number of voters, the better the representation. II is also strong if the concept of voting is seen analytically. When you vote, you decide to be with someone. Now, it is not necessary that you must be with someone. Such a compulsion would be going against the democratic principal .
I is not only a weak argument but absurd! Which house-wife would want to spoil her food by over- cooking it? II is also a weak argument: commitment to social welfare dose not imply blind carrying on of subsidies. The necessity of subsidies needs to be revised from time to time on a case-by -case basis.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.