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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
Methods of manual calculations are necessary for individuals, Hence, they should be encouraged. Thus, Argument I is strong Argument II is also strong in its way but since I and II contradict each other, we go for the choice (c).
I is not strong because we can not make anything legal merely on the basis of the approach of foreign countries toward it. Because there are various factors which affect it and these factors vary from one country to another. Argument II is weak because it does not add anything substantial to the statement.
II and III are strong. As the reserves of coal are limited, yet for stopping its use, alternate source of energy have to be discovered. This is the solution to conserve it. Hence, first argument is not strong.
It is true that till date we have been not able to harness a renewable source of energy and substitute the coal. Also, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment.
II and III are strong. Banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it.
So, Argument II holds strong . Also, tobacco products are a source of big revenue for the Government. So, Argument III also holds.
All are strong, mercy death will serve as a liberation to those to whom living is more difficult and painful. Also, it becomes our moral duty to encourage such people to live their lives to the fullest and support them through the crisis and not demoralise them by allowing them to die, if they wish to.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.