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.
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 improved ambience is desirable. Argument II is strong because segmentation of adult is undesirable.
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.
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 .
Both the arguments refer to the practical consequences of the action mentioned in the statement and hence, are strong.
Arguments I is weak as it is based on example. Argument II is strong as it is the demand of lakhs of employees it is justified.
Both are weak. There is no relation between the establishment of universities and the achievement of the literacy target. The second argument appear illogical that due to establishment of more universities we shall have highly educated and unemployment youths, Hence, both the arguments are weak.
Private sector is supposed to be more discipline and efficient than the government sector. Hence I is strong II is rubbish.
Argument II is strong as the presence of UNO ensures friendly relations among various countries. Argument I is also strong because now a days the presence of UNO is felt undesirable.
Restriction on the diet of people will deny them their basic human right. So, only Argument II holds strong.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.