- Only argument I is strong
- Only argument II is strong
- Either I or II is strong
- Neither I nor II is strong
- Both I and II are strong
Answer: Option 2 The demolition of unauthorized buildings would teach a lesson to the unscrupulous builders and also serve as a warning for the citizens not to indulge in such...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 2 Clearly, cottage industries need to be promoted to create more job opportunities for rural people in the villages themselves. The reason that rural people are creative is...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 3 Opening up of new industries is advantageous in opening more employment avenues, and disadvantageous in that it adds to the pollution. So, either of the arguments holds...
1 Answers 5 viewsAnswer: Option 1 Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and animal life. So, argument I alone holds.
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 4 The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the Objectives...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 4 'Hire and fire policy' implies 'taking up the performing employees and discarding the non-performing ones'. Clearly, such a policy would stand out to encourage employees to work...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 1 Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 3 Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as...
1 Answers 1 viewsAnswer: Option 3 Opening new industries is advantageous in creating more job opportunities mean while it further increases the pollution of the city. So, either of arguments is strong.
1 Answers 1 views