Statement:
Should politicians be made to declare their educational qualifications?
Arguments:
I. Yes, to develop a global perspective and represent India on the world map it is the need of the hour because a sound educational background guarantees some degree of understanding of the needs of the nation.
II. No, what do we need ___ a leader an academic?

Both arguments are ridiculous. Neither of them says about the positive or negative aspect which compels India to attack or restrain itself to take such harsh initiatives.

I is strong because it goes into reason and keeps humanity above all. II is also strong because being a secular country India needs to respect the freedom of all religions.

I goes into reason. Hence I is strong . II is weak because it is not advocating whether despite being cumbersome for the regulators it is beneficial for the people or not.

I is obviously strong. II is weak because freedom of speech does not mean sending racist messages.

I is weak because it does not hit at the main question ___''rearing endangered species''. II is weak because it assumes that rearing musk deer will diminish their number. Experience, on the other hand, tells us that rearing of a species for commercial purposes only adds to its number.

I is not strong because ''more emphasis'' on one aspect can't be interpreted as an insult to the other aspect. II does not carry any substance.

II says about the need and outcome of the initiative. Hence, II is strong. But I does not say how the grievances of the people will enhance.

I is strong. A right tip at the right time can reap huge dividends. II is not strong. One does not assume that going to school students will become their primary role.

Both I and II do not present any rational facts. Hence both are weak arguments.

I is weak because ''amendment'' itself implies that the existing laws are not sufficient. There is no addition to what has been said in the statement. II is strong because the miseries of the entrepreneurs are certainly not desirable.