Clearly, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold.
2. Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?
Arguments:
No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.
Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances.
Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.
3. Statement: Should all refugees, who make unauthorized entry into a country, be forced to go back to their homeland?
Arguments:
Yes. They make their colonies and occupy a lot of land.
No. They leave their homes because of hunger or some terror and on human grounds, should not be forced to go back.
Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.
4. Statement: Should there be a restriction on the migration of people from one state to another state in India?
Arguments:
No. Any Indian citizen has a basic right to stay at any place of his/her choice and hence they cannot be stopped.
Yes. This is the way to effect an equitable distribution of resources across the states in India.
Clearly, trees play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and so must be preserved. So, argument I holds. Also, trees form the basic source of timber and a complete ban on cutting of trees would harm timber based industries. So, only a controlled cutting of trees should be allowed and the loss replenished by planting more trees. So, argument II is also valid.
6. Statement: Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments:
No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
7. Statement: Should students take part in politics?
Arguments:
Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.
Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.
8. Statement: Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?
Arguments:
Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.
The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.
9. Statement: Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments:
Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.
10. Statement: Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?
Arguments:
No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.
No. It is against the principle of equality, does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?
Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.