Argument I is weak as it merely tries to evade the issue. Argument II may turn out to be true but it is based on a negative mind set, may be it's mere of an assumption. Hence, II is weak. Argument III gets into the reason and is therefore strong.
Argument I is not true for all roads : work is often done in phases and meets completion. Argument II is weak : such use of electricity cannot be termed 'unnecessary.' Argument III is strong as it shows concern for commuters.
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.
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 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 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.
Only Argument II is strong, Arguments I and III are weak as 'All' cannot be punished for the fault of 'many.'
None of the arguments has strong reasons to support or to oppose the given statements. So, none of the arguments is strong.
Arguments I and IV are strong because the rule of wearing helmet for both driver and pillion rider while driving a motor bike should be followed strictly by all. It protects our head which is the most sensitive organ of human body.
I; I is a strong argument because it is true that the out come of the move will result as a explained in the argument I. but II is weak because the abuse of a situation is inherent in any move.
Practical dimension has always been laid with applicative wisdom of a learned person. degrees never had anything to do with that.so, I is not strong.II seems irrelevant because it wants to deal with unemployment problem,not with the compatibility of university education and employment opportunities.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.