I is not strong because it does not give sufficient reason. II is strong because it states a genuine concern.
I is strong because it will give lesson to erring states and will pave the way for the Central government to deal directly with NGOs. II is also strong because it will be difficult for the ministry to keep a watchful eye on the utilisation of funds released to NGOs, as a result of which cases of embezzlement may increase.
I is weak because it is vague. II is strong because it is not a right way of arguing and is based on wrong assumption.
I is not strong because of the word 'only'. II is weak because it is against sterilisation. In the era of science and technology such argument is not considered as an important one .
I is true and the new entity will give a new shape to the performance of the Indian Railways. Hence, I is strong. II is not strong because the argument rembles into concerns other than corporatisation.
I is not an argument. It defines superstition. Hence, I is not strong. II is not strong because it obsessed with the wrong assumption that a belief which prevails in our society deeply needs no intervention of law.
Not all spurious drugs lead to mass murder. So we cannot assume I to be true. Hence I is weak. II is strong because death sentence is self-defeating. If one dies, how can one be reformed?
Both I and II are weak arguments. I merely mentions the two occasions when the donation was banned. It does not pinpoint the core issue. II merely mentions the year from when the donation exists. It adds no argumentative substance in support of 'No'.
I is strong because it will bring some reform in our society and help ensure justice for women. II is strong because it will ruin the cultural identity and abet disharmony in society.
Argument I lacks substance and is hence weak. That it is a ''flying coffin'' is evident from the statement itself. II is strong because it makes no sense to ban the aircraft when the responsibility lies somewhere else.
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.