Strong And Weak Argument

The correct answer is "Only argument II is strong" because it provides a valid reason for making computer knowledge a compulsory subject at the secondary school level. Argument II states that without equipping the young generation with computers, we cannot compete in the international market. This implies that computer knowledge is necessary for success in the modern world and supports the idea of making it a compulsory subject. Argument I, on the other hand, is weak as it focuses on the need for "bread" for everyone and opposes following western methods, which is not directly related to the question of computer knowledge.

The correct answer is "Only argument II is strong." Argument II is strong because it emphasizes the principle of equality before the law, which is a fundamental aspect of justice and fairness. It suggests that regardless of someone's status or prestige, they should be treated equally when it comes to facing the consequences of committing a crime. Argument I, on the other hand, is weak because it assumes that prestigious people do not commit crimes intentionally, which may not always be the case.

Argument I is a strong argument because it states that incentives are essential for attracting government servants in rural areas. This suggests that without incentives, it may be difficult to attract qualified individuals to work in rural areas, which could lead to a shortage of government servants in those areas. Argument II is a weak argument because it simply states that rural areas are already cheaper and less complex than urban areas, without addressing the issue of attracting government servants.

The given question is asking whether it is vital to spend so much money on advertisements. Argument I states that it is essential in a capitalist economy, suggesting that advertisements play a crucial role in promoting products and driving economic growth. This argument is strong because it recognizes the importance of advertising in a market-driven economy. Argument II states that it leads to wastage of resources, suggesting that the money spent on advertisements could be better utilized elsewhere. However, this argument is not as strong as argument I because it does not consider the potential benefits and positive impact of advertising. Therefore, only argument I is strong.

Both arguments I and II are strong. Argument I suggests that having a track on the maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections would make the elections more meaningful as voters can make a considered judgment when casting their vote. This implies that voters would have more options to choose from and can evaluate each candidate before making a decision. Argument II suggests that in a democratic country, there should be no restrictions on who can contest parliamentary elections as long as they fulfill the eligibility criteria. This upholds the principle of democracy, which allows any eligible citizen to participate in the electoral process.

The correct answer is "Only argument I is strong" because the argument states that all legislators should be forced to resign from their profession in order to devote more time to the country. This argument suggests that by resigning, legislators will have more time and energy to focus on their duties and responsibilities towards the country. However, argument II, which states that nobody will contest the election, does not directly support the idea of legislators resigning from their profession. It is not necessary for nobody to contest the election if legislators resign.

The given answer suggests that neither argument I nor argument II is strong. This means that both arguments have weaknesses and are not convincing enough to support or oppose the idea of giving colleges the status of a university in India. Argument I assumes that colleges are better equipped to assess student performance and that their degrees will be more valid, but it fails to provide evidence or reasoning to support this claim. Argument II dismisses the idea based on the assumption that nepotism and corruption will always exist in awarding degrees by colleges, but it does not consider the potential measures and regulations that can be put in place to prevent such issues.

Both arguments I and II present valid points regarding the control of pollution. Argument I suggests that if everyone realizes the hazards and cooperates, pollution can be controlled. This highlights the importance of awareness and collective action. Argument II acknowledges the challenges posed by factories, industries, crowded highways, and a growing population. These factors contribute to pollution and may be difficult to control. Therefore, either argument I or II can be considered strong in supporting the statement that pollution can be controlled.