Statement:
Should firms give priority to getting new clients?
Arguments:
I. Yes. They offer the potential for additional future revenues.
II. No. This would hamper the service being provided to old clients.

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.

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 weak because though it supports a noble cause, this has nothing to do with poverty. II is strong because affordability cannot be overlooked.

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.

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.

Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong. It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong. Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment. So, III also holds strong.

Clearly, none of the arguments provide a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Clearly, a policy to select deserving candidates cannot be abolished just because of the expenditure it entails. So, argument I does not hold. Also, students who are intelligent enough to secure good marks in academic exams have no reason not to perform well in entrance tests. So, II also does not hold. Further, the students passed out from different universities are assessed on different patterns and hence a common entrance test would put the candidates to uniform test and assessment. So, only III holds strong.