Argument I is strong as reduced tobacco consumption is desirable. Arguments II is weak as such convenience is not desirable.
Arguments I is weak as it is an argument by example. Arguments II is weak because it is rubbish. In fact, it is mature having such a criteria, lesser maturity would be required when the choice is limited.
Argument I is not necessarily true. Hence, it is weak. Argument II deviates from the core issue. Hence, it is also weak.
Considering India's economy, unscheduled holidays will hamper national progress. Hence, Argument I is strong, Argument II is ambiguous and hence, it is weak.
Restriction on the diet of people will deny them their basic human right. So, only Argument II holds strong.
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.
Both the arguments are ambiguous and not supported by a clear cut logic. Hence, both are weak.
Arguments I and II both are strong. The high salary of executives in multinational companies would definitely create unhealthy competition and consequently our companies which are not rich will be in difficulties. Secondly, such ceiling will discourage multinationals to take interest in our economy and encourage our companies.
Argument I is strong but Arguments II is simplistic and hence, it is a weak argument.
Arguments I is not the right way. Thus, Argument I s weak Arguments II is strong as upliftment of socially backward classes is necessary.
Arguments I does not establish proper relation with the statement. Argument II may be an opinion and has not been discussed in the given statement. Hence, I and II both are weak.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.