I is strong because it is desirable to help the needy students. II is also strong because compromising on quality takes away from the purpose of education.
I is strong as growth of the economy is desirable. II is not strong because Saturdays and Sundays are meant for this very intermitten rest. This purpose is not served by holidays.
I is strong as improved ambience is desirable.
II is strong because regimentation of adults is undesirable.
I is weak because it is not relevant to "complete ban". II is a strong argument because banning mining in such a scenario will lead us into great trouble.
I is strong because female foeticide is undesirable. II is weak.
As I is weak because it Superfluous, it dose not go into the reason for population control. II. Is an argument by example and hence weak.
I is weak because it gives undue weightage to nuclear power. Hydel power etc also help reduce air pollution. II is strong because safety is a very important criterion.
I is weak because it lacks in substance. Merely calling something a "nuisance" is simplistic. II is weak because it wrongly assumes that those people can't contribute to the nation otherwise.
I is strong because performance should definitely be a criterion for "national sport" status. II is irrelevant one fails to see the harm in two nations sharing a national sport. Besides, if every nation decided to have a different national sport, we would run out of sports as there would be just too many countries.
Arguments I and II both are strong as there will be greater administrative convenience by forming small states out of bigger states in India. Secondly, it may also lead to a danger to the national integration.
It is known fact that unless you create awareness through advertisements, about your products, you lag behind from your competitors. Also, heavy cost on advertisements adds to your product, Hence both the arguments are strong.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.