See the phrase 'frequent stakes'. Argument I advocates the effect caused by the frequent strikes on youngsters. Hence, I is strong . But II is not strong . Because here our core issue is banning of frequent strikes and not all types of strikes.
I is strong because citizens feel unnecessarily harassed.
I is strong because it advocates that one gets maturity by the age of 18-20 years. II is also strong because it advocates that one gets social maturity only by the age 25 years. Hence, both are strong arguments.
II is not strong because no excuse can be put up against the society's development.
See the word 'might' in argument I. We know 'might' is used for lesser possibilities. How can we restrict a move on the basis such remotely possible weaknesses.
Hence I is weak.II is obviously a strong argument.
Both I and II are weak arguments because the supporting facts to stress 'yes' or 'no' are not up to the mark. They do not concentrate upon the real points in the question.
I is not strong because it neglects the heritage value. II is obviously strong.
I is weak because it merely talks of the provision being abused. It does not point to any weakness inherent in the provision. II is weak because it seems to equate ''amendment'' with ''abolition''.
I is strong because it says how the mandatory AIDS test for brides and grooms will be helpful. II is a weak argument because it is obsessed with obscurantist notions.
I is not strong because the argument is not directly related to the core issue. II is argument because it depicts the seamy side witnessed in absence of a censor board for advertisement.
Both I and II are strong. I is strong because in absence of such permission how will those students continue their studies whose financial situation is not strong. II is also strong because it make one confident and adept.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.