if we apply the proposed scheme,people will not deposit their money for longer period and thus liquidity with the bank will fall drastically. So, only Argument I holds.
Only Argument II is strong because a common entrance test will brought a uniformity in the standard of students, which is necessary.
Clearly, if we form smaller states out of bigger one in India, there will be of greater administrative convenience. Hence Argument I is strong. Also, it may hamper the national integration. So, Argument II also strong. Hence, both arguments are strong.
Argument I is weak because reduction of work load of IT officials is not too desirable a motive. Argument II is strong as reduced tax collection will have a bad impact on state activities.
No, children should not be prevented completely from watching the television because we get vital information regarding education through television and its does not hamper the study of children, if it is watched according to a schedule. So, Argument I is strong, while Argument II is weak.
Logically, only Arguments I is strong
We know that, oil is an essential commodity and its prices govern the price of other essential commodities.Also, the common people must be taken care of. Hence, Argument II holds strong.
Restrictions on the diet of people will deny them their basic human right. So, only Argument II holds
Clearly. India seeks to bring different nations on friendly term with each other.Also, internal problem of a nation should not discourage it from strengthening international relations. Hence, only Argument I holds strong.
Foreign films depict the alien culture but they also help in learning.Hence,both argument are not strong.
For personal gain,doctor can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment. Also,a policy beneficial to common people cannot be 'undemocratic'. So only Argument II holds.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.