Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.
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, 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, 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, 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.
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.
The armed forces must consist of physically strong and mentally mature individuals to take care of defence properly. So, argument I holds strong. Clearly, argument II is vague.
Clearly, it is the advertisement which makes the customer aware of the qualities of the product and leads him to buy it. So, argument I is valid. But at the same time, advertising nowadays has become a cost affair and expenses on it add to the price of the product. So, argument II also holds strong.
Clearly, laws are made to ensure that no person pursues the practice. So, persons who violate the laws need to be punished. Thus, argument I holds. A wrong practice, no matter how firmly rooted, needs to be ended. So, argument II is vague.
Clearly, such projects if handed over to the private sector shall be given to a competent authority. So, argument I is vague. Also, imitating a policy on the basis that it worked out successfully in other countries, holds no relevance. Thus, argument II also does not hold strong.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.