Statement: Should India give away Kashmir to Pakistan?

Arguments:

1. No. Kashmir is a beautiful state. It earns a lot of foreign exchange for India.
2. Yes. This would help settle conflicts.

The students union formation shall be a step towards giving to students the basic education in the field of politics. However, it shall create the same political atmosphere in the campus. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.

Clearly, harnessing solar energy will be helpful as it is an inexhaustible resource unlike other resources. So, argument I holds. But argument II is vague as solar energy is the cheapest form of energy.

Clearly, health of the citizens is an issue of major concern for the Government. So, a product like drugs, must be first studied and tested in the Indian context before giving licence for its sale. So, only argument I holds strong.

Clearly, India can export only the surplus and that which can be saved after fulfilling its own needs, to pay for its imports. Encouragement to export cannot lead to shortages as it shall provide the resources for imports. So, only argument I holds.

The passage discusses the autonomy of art, emphasizing that art must be self-contained and not influenced by anything other than itself. It insists that art alone must bring the work into being, free from external interference. Here's the analysis of the options based on the passage:

1. Option A - art is governed by external rules and conditions:
   • The passage argues that art should not be governed by anything other than itself. It directly contradicts the idea that art is ruled by external conditions or rules.
   • This option is not supported by the passage.
2. Option B - art is for the sake of art and life:
   • The passage focuses on the autonomy of art itself, rather than its connection to life. While art can have life-related themes, the passage emphasizes that art must exist for itself, not for the sake of life.
   • This option is not fully supported by the passage.
3. Option C - art is for the sake of art alone:
   • The passage strongly supports the idea that art must be self-contained and not influenced by anything outside of art itself. This aligns with the statement that art is for the sake of art alone.
   • This option is strongly supported by the passage.
4. Option D - artist realises his dreams through his artistic creation:
   • The passage does not discuss the artist realizing their dreams through art. Instead, it focuses on the self-contained nature of art and its need to be untouched by external forces.
   • This option is not supported by the passage.
5. Option E - artist should use his art for the sake of society:
   • The passage emphasizes that art should not be influenced by anything external, including society. It suggests that art must exist for its own sake, not for societal purposes.
   • This option is not supported by the passage.
6. Final Answer:
   • The best supported statement by the passage is C. art is for the sake of art alone.

Clearly, cottage industries need to be promoted to create more job opportunities for rural people in the villages themselves. The reason that rural people are creative is vague. So, only argument II holds.

Clearly, encouraging the young entrepreneurs will open up the field for the establishment of new industries. Thus, it shall help in industrial development and not only employ the entrepreneurs but create more job opportunities for others as well. So, both the arguments hold strong.

Clearly, neither the students can be burdened with studies at such a tender age, nor can they be left free to take studies casually, as this shall weaken their basic foundation. So, both the arguments follow.

Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.

Clearly, argument I is vague because at present too, many fields are open to all after graduation. However, eliminating the post-graduate courses would abolish higher and specialized studies which lead to understanding things better and deeply. So, argument II is valid.