Argument I is weak because talking of culture is irrelevant in this case. In fact, Argument I is not even true. Argument II is weak because it is simplistic. We are not told what these 'unhealthy practices' will be. Argument III is weak because it is superfluous.
Argument I is strong because such a reduction in trend will be a desirable consequence. Argument II is weak as it silent as to what effect the ban will have on the creative pursuits. III is strong as a ban will take away from the power of the portrayal.
Competent work force is desirable. Hence, Argument I is strong. Argument II does not appear to be true for all PSUs. And even it is true, an argument that takes recourse in helplessness seems to fall short on merit. Argument III is strong as competition is desirable.
I is strong because fosters sportsman spirit.II is weak argument because the weakness of team is know not only to its former players.
II is weak argument because it wrongly assumes that vacation makes employees lazy and less hardworking.
I is strong because lesser vacation ensures higher working days. will reduce the work pending.
only I is strong because it will make the PDS programme more meaningful and purposeful. II is weak because it adds nothing substantial to the statement.
Argument I is weak because it is not true. Look at the alternative given in II. Argument II is also not strong because instead of getting into the reason. it provides an alternative Argument III is simplistic and hence weak. It is argument by example.
Argument I is weak as it is not true. Argument II is also weak on the same grounds. Argument III is strong as it elaborates on how banning exports would help tackle the drought situation.
Argument I is strong as it addresses the problem of food scarcity. Argument II is strong as environment is a very important issue. Argument III is weak as 'the caution' part is neither convincing nor mature.
Argument I is weak because of the use of only Argument II is strong as the country's power need cannot be ignored. Argument III is weak because it is the argument based on example.
Argument I is strong as space constraints do play a crucial rule. Argument II is false as the buyers also benefit in terms of cost and greenery. Argument III is strong as merely constructing new buildings does not make sense. First adequate infrastructural facilities should be provided to the existing buildings.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.