I does not point out the reasons of impairment . But II is strong because an important part of economic activity can't be ignored.
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.
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.
Argument II describes the negative aspect of the vernacular medium. Hence II is strong.
I is weak because it confuses economy, nationality, etc. II is strong because it clearly categories terrorism and suggests the remedy accordingly.
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 shows the benefits of rooftop rainwater harvesting: hence I is strong. II is strong as it talks of the necessity.
Argument I is too simplistic. Hence I is not strong but II is because it pinpoints the positive feature.
Arguments I is strong because it pinpoints the negative feature of an illiterate bus driver . II is not strong because mechanical skill is not enough. Traffic rules are also important.
I is strong because it focusses on the problems caused by bullock carts.
if neither I nor II is strong; and
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.