Clearly, a good behavior may at some point of time lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such a behavior may be mistaken for our weakness and it would be difficult to continue with it if the other county doesn't stop its sinister activities. Hence, II also holds.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Clearly, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I hold.
Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So. argument II also does not hold.
Both the argument are strong enough. The condition have to be agreed to, in order to save the life of the victims, though actually tey ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnappers.
For the all - round progress of the nation, all the students, especially the talented and intelligent ones, must avail of higher education, even if the government has to pay for it, So, only argument II holds.
Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.