I is weak because the constitutional provision cited here applies only to Indian citizens. II is weak because it is only a tentative proposition. Note the word might.
I is strong because a doctor may have to take certain risks to save the the patient's life. II is strong because negligence should not deprive the patients of their legitimate rights.
I is strong because a major reason behind any punishment is to create fear of the crime among other. II is not strong because no law works on the basis of fearing the criminal. For that matter, a criminal does not even like simple punishment. And so even when then there is no capital punishment involved, he will try to eradicate all the evidence.
I is strong because ACs consume too much of electricity, creating a problem of supply for the other more necessary amenities. II is not strong: there is not so much of electricity available as to allow everyone to use his peak load capacity.
Allowing human embryo cloning will harness the benefits of embryonic stem cells that can potentially alleviate suffering in diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Hence I is strong .
People have witnessed serious malformation in all species cloned so far, which implies that success rate is abysmally poor. Low success rate makes argument II forceful.
Directive principles of Indian Constitutions cell upon government to provide food , shelter and clothing for every citizen but government has not been forced to comply with them. Besides, providing shelter need not be in the from of random hutment colonies. Hence I is weak.
II is strong because shelter without civic amenities is not sustainable.
I is strong argument. As the employment opportunities in India are limited, so any share in it by foreigners will reduce the opportunities for Indians. But II is weak. It is not the duty of any country to give opportunity for work to foreigners.
Both are strong arguments. I will hinder the poor citizens but II will minimise the loss form postal services to the government.
I is weak because though it supports a noble cause, this has nothing to do with poverty. II is strong because affordability cannot be overlooked.
Dismissing the losses as ''a routine matter'' is void of logic. If such losses have become regular, there is all the more reason why they need to be explained. So I is weak. II is strong; accountability is at stake.
I is strong : it cites one of the prime indicators of the effectiveness of the reforms. II is also strong because good monsoons mean good agriculture. Since agriculture has a good share in our gross domestic product (GDP) and since good agriculture promotes other sectors of the economy as well, good monsoons will inevitably lead to better economic results. In that case, it is possible that the success is not that of economic reforms.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.