Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for longer durations (the rate of interest being the same for short durations) and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so, they want to keep only a boy child and do away with a girl child. So, argument I holds. Also, people have a right to know only about the health, development and general well- being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.
Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of,can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfill the objectives of the Constitution. Thus,both the arguments hold strong.
Clearly, peaceful settlement through mutual agreement is the option, whatever be the issue. So argument I holds strong. Moreover, the problem indicated in II can be curbed by constant check and vigilance. So, II seems to be vague.
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.
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.
Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement, is vague.
Clearly, Oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the prices of other essential commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather commodities. As such, the interest of the common people must be taken care of, rather than the profitability of some oil companies. So, only argument II holds, strong.
Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong. Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favor to some people at the cost of government funds. so, argument I does not hold.
Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.
A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. So, argument I holds strong. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.