Statement
Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than through entrance tests?
Arguments
I. Yes, it will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.
II. Yes, many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
III. No, the standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different boards and universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.

If there is complete ban on genetically modified seeds, it will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds, so Arguments I is strong. Argument II is not strong due to the word 'only'. Argument III is strong because genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products.

In Argument I the use of key word only makes it weak. If there is common syllabus for graduation across the universities, then this will standardise the quality of graduation certificates , which is desirable, hence Argument II is strong. Argument III is also strong as specific requirement and autonomy of the the university cannot be overlooked.

Argument I and II are strong because a single tax will simplify the tax collection mechanism and manufactures and traders will be benefited by it. What other countries are doing, we should not adopt that blindly. So, Argument III is not strong.

It cannot be said that is literate person has all round knowledge of politics. So, Argument I is strong. IIIiterate person can easily be misled on various factors but voting is also a constitutional right of every citizen. So, Arguments II and III are also strong.

Students should take subject of their interest at graduate level. At post -graduate level only interest is not the factor to take subjects. So, Argument I is not strong but II is strong because at post-graduate level, students must fulfill the essential conditions.

In 'hire and fire' policy, performing employees are rewarded while non-performing employees are show the door. This increases the level of efficiency and profitability. So, Arguments I and III are strong while Argument II is not.

I is weak because it seems to be at best a joke and at worst a whim . It is not acceptable to reason. Economists, even when in large numbers, are only a handful. So how much do you think you can gain by giving them some other employment? And if you think the devil lies in their theories- that two economists seldom agree-, let me tell you it's a healthy trend. Critics are very important in the upliftment of a society. II is strong because the more the awareness, the greater the activity. See how our economy has developed in recent years.

I is not strong. If the surveys are fake, there is nothing wrong whit surveys per se. If a fault creeps into a method, we should correct the method instead of discarding it. II is strong because in a buyer 's market, you must know the consumer behavior thoroughly to stay ahead of your competitors.

I is strong because a hung parliament must be got rid of for the benefit of nation. II is also strong because elections carry the mandate of voters. If they are cheated, the very purpose of elections is lost.

I is strong because economy can flourish only when its backbone is strong. II is weak because it does not cite any substantial reason. What does ''too big a role'' mean?