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.
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.
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.
Clearly, pesticides are meant to prevent the crops from harmful pests. But at the same time, they get washed away with water and contaminate the groundwater. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.
Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so as they want to only a boy child and do away with a girl child. So, argument I holds. Also, people have a right to know only about the health, development and general well-being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.
Physical force can accomplish a task by compulsion, while the influential writings can mould the thinking of an individual and change his discretion into accomplishing the task wilfully. So, only argument I holds strong.
Clearly, a good behaviour may at some point of time lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such behaviour may be mistaken for our weakness and it would be difficult to continue with it if the other country doesn't stop its sinister activities. Hence, II also holds.
Clearly, the luxury hotels are a mark of country's standard and a place for staying for the affluent foreign tourists. So, argument II holds. Argument I is not a strong reason because ban on hotels is not a way to do away with the activities of international criminals.
Exam Wise
Subject Wise
View Answer
Discuss in forum
Workspace
Report
