Statement:
Should a poverty-ridden country invest money in hosting international games?
Arguments:
I. Yes, international games bring many countries on a single platform and evolve co-ordination among these countries.
II. No. To host international games, a huge amount of money will be needed which will adversely affect welfare programmes aimed at eradicating poverty.

Both are strong arguments. I will hinder the poor citizens but II will minimise the loss form postal services to the government.

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.

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.

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.

I is strong because additional future revenues is a welcome prospect for any firm. II is not strong because it can not be assumed that new clients are being made at the cost of old ones.

Both the argument are strong. I is strong because we have seen how some of the states have gone the dangerous way because of a feeling of neglect. The larger parties are dominated by leaders from larger states, so the interests of the smaller ones are given the go-by. II is also strong because we have been witnessing this for quite a few years and also how this has led to a growth slower than expected.

I is not strong: merely banning production will not put an end to consumption. people may import tobacco and consume it. II is strong because one has to think and re-think before banning a source of revenue.