Statement:
Should restriction on rickshaw-pullers and prisoners for donation of blood be removed?
Arguments:
I. Yes, by putting these restrictions, a large section of public are not able to donate their blood event their own relatives in emergencies.
II. No, blood donation is men to save people's life; if fingers are pointed towards someone's eligibility as a donor owing to possibility of non suitable or erroneous blood, then such persons must be restricted from doing so.

I is an absurd arguments. Hence it is weak. II is a strong argument because it goes into the reason behind the pension schemes. And how the move will badly effect the employee's life.

I does not tell about the bad aspect of the corporal punishment and why banning is necessary. Hence I is not strong. II is also not strong because the argument is obsessed with an inappropriate assumption that scare of corporal punishment leads a child to studies.

I is a strong argument. Keeping the same motive into consideration, FDI in print media has recently been allowed in India. II is also strong because it is true that the money and managerial power of foreigners is likely to have a negative impact on the Indian press.

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.

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

The advantage shown in argument I is unlikely to be true and farfetched. But II is strong because we should not ignore our tradition.

I is strong , because it will make the financial position of hospital more strong and since user charges will be paid by the income-tax payer class, this user charge will put only a nominal burden on the budget of the class. II is a strong argument because the very reason why the state collects taxes is to provide physical and social infrastructure.

Both I and II are weak argument. I portrays a trivial aspect, hence it is weak. II is weak because it advocates for one's liberty not in a rational sense.

I is strong because a good medium of education thought entertainment must not be banned. II is a weak argument because just because of a few sites it would be not wise to ban children completely form using the Internet.

I is not the appropriate way to reduce unemployment. Hence, I is a weak argument. II is obviously strong; otherwise the intellectual classes will feel humiliated and it will hamper the progress of the nation in the long run.