Argument I is strong because it explains the constitutional rights of a person. II is a weak argument. There is no fear of extortion Because tenants will also be an equal party to rent fixation.
Both I and II are strong. Infringement of constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards can 't be ignored. Hence I is strong . Argument II is also strong because insufficiency of existing laws gives rise to the need to bring new laws.
Argument I does not follow because it does not tell any thing about the quantity of liquor. Argument II is strong because it goes into reason and points out the negative effect of excess liquor.
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.
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 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.
Both I and II are weak. We can't correlate the situation in our country with that of other countries without giving the context.
I is weak because it confuses economy, nationality, etc. II is strong because it clearly categories terrorism and suggests the remedy accordingly.
Argument II describes the negative aspect of the vernacular medium. Hence II is strong.
Since availability of LPG is necessary, I is strong. Again, it is not adaptable to our existing type of engines, Hence II is also strong.
I do not go into reasons of hike of transportation changes. Hence I is weak. II is strong because there will be a great effect on the budgets of the parents.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.