Statement
Should there be complete ban on manufacture of fire crackers in India?
Arguments
I. No this will render thousands of workers jobless.
II. Yes, the fire cracker manufactures use child labour to a large extent.

Argument I is not strong because word 'only' makes the argument weak as it is not the only real and practical solution to improve the level of literacy, Argument II is strong as if described the practical problem which may arise out of the decision of making education free in India.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is very clear that encouragement to the young entrepreneurs will open up the fields for setting up of new industries. Therefore, it will help in industrial development. Consequently, more job opportunities will be created. Thus, both the arguments are strong .

The luxury hotels are symbols of country's development and a place for staying the affluent foreign tourists. So Argument II is a strong one. Argument I is a weak argument because ban on luxury hotels is not a way to end the international criminals.

Argument I is strong as improved ambience is desirable. Argument II is strong because segmentation of adult is undesirable.

Both are strong but both cannot be true at the same time. The sale will either be affected (as I says) or not be affected (as II says). Hence, either is strong.

Argument I is strong as school is the ground where we prepare for the future battles of life. Argument II is strong as examination kill our creativity, turning us all into mere clerks.