I is weak because the constitutional provision cited here applies only to Indian citizens. II is weak because it is only a tentative proposition. Note the word might.

I is strong argument. As the employment opportunities in India are limited, so any share in it by foreigners will reduce the opportunities for Indians. But II is weak. It is not the duty of any country to give opportunity for work to foreigners.

Both are strong arguments. I will hinder the poor citizens but II will minimise the loss form postal services to the government.

I is weak because though it supports a noble cause, this has nothing to do with poverty. II is strong because affordability cannot be overlooked.

Dismissing the losses as ''a routine matter'' is void of logic. If such losses have become regular, there is all the more reason why they need to be explained. So I is weak. II is strong; accountability is at stake.

I is strong : it cites one of the prime indicators of the effectiveness of the reforms. II is also strong because good monsoons mean good agriculture. Since agriculture has a good share in our gross domestic product (GDP) and since good agriculture promotes other sectors of the economy as well, good monsoons will inevitably lead to better economic results. In that case, it is possible that the success is not that of economic reforms.

I is strong because additional future revenues is a welcome prospect for any firm. II is not strong because it can not be assumed that new clients are being made at the cost of old ones.

Both the argument are strong. I is strong because we have seen how some of the states have gone the dangerous way because of a feeling of neglect. The larger parties are dominated by leaders from larger states, so the interests of the smaller ones are given the go-by. II is also strong because we have been witnessing this for quite a few years and also how this has led to a growth slower than expected.

I is not strong: merely banning production will not put an end to consumption. people may import tobacco and consume it. II is strong because one has to think and re-think before banning a source of revenue.

Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong. It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong. Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment. So, III also holds strong.