Statement:
Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments:
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.

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.

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.

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.

Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide any convincing reason. Also, it is not obligatory that government control over the institute would ensure better education than that at present. So, both III and IV also do not hold.