Clearly, mechanization would speed up the work and increase the production. So, argument I is strong enough. Argument II is vague because mechanization will only eliminate wasteful employment not create unemployment.
I is strong argument. It will definitely help to improve the quality of defence goods, because competition always helps to improve quality at lesser expenses. II is strong because the nation's integrity cannot be compromised.
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.''.
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.
if only argument I is strong
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.
Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. so, arguments I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So argument II also holds.
A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. so, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
Clearly an increase in the number of High courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases,So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold.
Clearly with so many people around in joint family, thhere is more security. Also work is shared. So argument I holds. In nuclear families there are lesser number of people and so lesser responsibilities and more freedom. Thus, II also holds.
An equitable distribution of foreign investment is a must for uniform development all over the country. So, argument I holds. Also, no backward state ought to be neglected, rather such states should be prepared and shaped up to attract foreign investment as well So, II does not hold.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.