Statements:
Should all those who are convicted for heinous crimes like murder or rape, beyond all reasonable doubts be given capital punished or death penalty?
Arguments:
I. No. the death penalty should be given only in very rate and exceptional cases.
II. Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take other' lives or indulge in inhuman activities
III. Yes. Such sever punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
IV. No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.

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, 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.

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.

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.

Only argument II is strong. The students cannot be enrolled in the courses just on the basis of their interests, but their compatibility with the same also matters. No, I does not hold. Besides, lack of institutes in no criteria to deny post-graduate courses to students.So, argument III also does not hold. II provides a genuine reason and thus holds strong.

The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I or II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus IV also does not hold strong . However, it is the right of an individual to get the post or which he fulfills the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, augment III hold strong.

Young children of class IV ought to be taught the basic fundamentals of subjects in a gradual process via practical examples and practice in a playful manner. They need not be made to study through compulsion and their age is not such as to bear the tension and their age is not such as to bear the tension and burden of examinations. So, both II and IV hold strong. However, facing examinations at this stage shall prepare them to tackle the competitions in later life. So, III also hold. However, holding examinations cannot motivate such young and immature students, neither is it a way to make them learn more. So, i does not holds strong.

The reservation of jobs in the private sector too would surely increase opportunities for weaker sections improve their economic plight. Thus, argument I is strong enough. Also, private sector companies work on a good profit margin and they can and will have to accommodate such a policy if implemented. So, neither II nor IV holds strong. Further, just imitating other countries holds no relevance. So, argument III also does not hold.

Clearly, our constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be lead astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.

The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid. Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intakes of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless ll its harmful effect have been proved. So, III hold strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by other countries. So, IV also does not hold.