II is strong because it tells why the move is illegal. I is weak because the given analogy is not appropriate. Nor is it convincing.
I is strong because being swept away by money is, unfair. II is strong because it shows why WTO can't help India in spite of being fair.
there is no relation between statement and argument so we cannot relate each other.
if neither I nor II is strong
if neither I nor II is strong; and
I is strong because it focusses on the problems caused by bullock carts.
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 weak because of the words ''no other way''. II is weak because it ignores the internal factors and circumstances of the country.
I is strong because it explains how the move is furitful for citizens. II is weak because it is based on the misinterpretation of the definition of human right.
if only argument I is strong
I is strong because law and order must be given priority. II is also strong. One has to go through various hassles for obtaining licenses, which will definitely affect adversely on the growth of these services.
International sporting events were originally conceived as a promoted of peace and harmony. Hence II is strong. I is not strong because it diverts the question form ''cricketing ties'' to ''bipartite dialogue.''.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.