Both are strong argument. A traffic hazard is playing with human lives, which certainly is not desirable. Hence, argument I is strong . II is strong because economic consideration is very important in taking a major decision: consider the tobacco and liquor industries, for example.
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.
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 .
if only argument I is strong
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.
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.
Only I is strong. A government needs to be stable to take decisions that would help the country develop. II is weak because it does not specify what it means by ''ruling properly.'' The argument is similar to that raised by desperate political parties.
I is strong because it is true that a lay reader would be put off by a profusion of technical terms. II is weak because it is not true. Newspapers would over are using simple language and gaining respect thereby.
I is strong because the security of people's lives should be given utmost priority. II is not strong because something is being dismissed summarily as ''nuisance'' without going into its reasons.
I is not strong because it is a stupid argument. In fact, no reason is being given at all. II is not strong because ''wastage of resources'' cannot be arrived at absolutely; it must be seen in a context.
I is not strong: the reason for the desirability of something is not its ''newness'', but its use. II is strong because it tells us that such a compulsion is not going to benefit us in any big way.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.