Statement:
Should state police or central police be banned form firing indiscriminately on the rampant mob in a trouble-torn area?
Arguments:
I. Yes, humans should always be treated in a humanitarian way.
II. No, this is the only way to restrict the rampant mob from indulging in illegal activities.

I does not answer how the real prosperity of nation will come thought the move. Hence I is weak. II is also weak because it does not say how the free railway pass will be harmful to students.

I is strong because it advocates for the interests of farmer and industries, the backbone of our country. II is weak due to the wording ''at all costs''.

I is strong because it cares for consumers and manufactures both. II is weak. Because it wrongly assumes that there is no way of hallmarking of gold without damaging its utility.

Argument I is strong because it interprets the survey conducted recently and emphasises on 'yes'. But II is not strong. What has been banned in Chennai should not necessarily be banned in other metropolitan cities.

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?

I Only I is strong. Quality of a doctor must not be neglected. II is not strong because it adds nothing to the statement.

Basic purpose of keeping a mobile phone is to facilitate mobile holders to be in touch whit the outside would. This purpose will not be affected even after the implementation of the move. Hence , I is weak. II is ambiguous.

Both communal harmony and furthering of social customs are desirable.

Any private services can't be banned only because there are charges against manipulation which can be rectified by legal actions. Hence I weak. II is also weak because of the word 'always'.

I is strong : it reveals the very purpose of registration of marriages. II is an absurd argument.