Statement:
Should all the students graduating in any discipline desirous of pursuing post-graduation of the subjects of their choice be allowed to enrol in the post-graduate courses?
Arguments:
I. Yes. The students are the bet judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses.
II. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enrol in postgraduate course and the students must fulfill such conditions.
III. No. There are not enough institutes offering post-graduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated.In fact,these inculcate moral values. So, argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the students, capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.

The security of the investor's money is not related to the size of the bank. Besides, even after consolidation, the number of investors, their amounts and hence the duties shall remain the same and so no employees will be redundant.Reducing the number of smaller banks will also not affect the mutual competition among the banks. Thus,none of the arguments hold strong.

clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.

Clearly, the rule has been devised or the safety of two-wheeler riders, as majority of two-wheeler accidents result in direct fall of the rider, leading to head injury and finally death. And the objective of a rule cannot be fulfilled until it is followed by all and this required strict enforcement. Thus, both I and IV hold strong, while III does not. Besides, it is the basic duty of the Government to look after the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the safety of the citizens and it ought not leave it to the direction of the individuals. So, argument II does not hold strong.

Clearly, a 'person commuting a heinous crime like murder or rape should be so punished as to set an example for other not to attempt such acts in future. So, argument III holds strong. Argument I is vague while the use of the word 'only' in argument II makes it weak. Also, it cannot be assured whether a criminal is really repentant of his acts or not, he may also exhibit so just to get rid off punishment. So, argument IV also does not hold.