Argument I and II both are weak, the argument that government's coffer can be filed only with the tax on agriculture is totally irrelevant secondly, it cannot be said that all the 80% rural population are poor.
Use of computers does have the positive impact, as mentioned in Argument I but the negative impact as mentioned in Argument II is also worth considering. So, both arguments are strong.
Both the arguments are strong as encouragement to the young entrepreneurs will open up the avenues of setting up of new industries. Hence, it will help in industrial development. consequently, more job opportunities will created.
Yes, Central Government should receive the major share because most of the development programmers are funded by Central Government and it also helps the Central Government to provide and manage the funds to poor states where funds are least collected.
Argument I is strong because, if all the police officers are transferred after every two years, then it will create a lot of administrative hassles and it will also create lot of inconvenience to the police officers. The use of term 'only'in the Argument II makes it invalid.
Argument I is strong as the ability to express gives groundness to one's education. Argument II is weak because to call a method 'the best' without giving any reason is simplistic assertion.
Argument I is strong because pollution control is highly desirable. Argument II is weak.
Argument I is strong as motivation is desirable action. Argument II is weak as it is superfluous. It is simply restating the question.
Argument I is strong as it takes a wise, reconciliatory approach to the problem. Argument II is also strong as water pollution, etc. may severally harm mankind.
Anything successful in other countries may not succeed in India. However, since English is much widely spoken language in the world today and hence, should be adopted is strong idea. Hence, Argument II is the strong argument.
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.