Statement:
Should the consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases
II. No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants.
III. No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effect on human body.
IV. Yes. It is banned inn many other countries also.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

Only I and II are strong. Clearly, both I and II hold strong, as they provide very convincing reasons, for a single tax system would help get rid of multifarious taxes on a product. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument III does not hold strong.

I is true on humaterian Ground and II on economic ground.

Assumption I is implicit as the advertisement suggests to read the given book for objective competitive exams. Assumption II is invalid because it has no relation with the given statement. Assumption III will be implicit because only then the advertisement makes sense.

Because congress in involved in corruption, the the statement suggest to vote congress out of power. It mean need of the honest Government is hidden is the statement. Hence, Assumption I is implicit. Assumption II is implicit as statement suggests the BJP as a substitute for the corrupt Government of congress. Assumption III has no connection at all with the given Government.