Clearly,
a world government cannot eliminate tensions among nations because it
will also have the ruling group and the opposition group. Further, the
more powerful and diplomatic shall rule the world to their interests.
So, only argument II holds.

The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in
unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same.
Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that
matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational
qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of
a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So,
recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus,
IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual
to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever
be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.

Genetically modified imported seeds have been specially formulated to
increase the yield and quality of produce. So, argument II is strong.
Besides, increase in production holds much more significance than the
sale of domestically produced seeds. Thus, argument I does not hold.
Also, the genetically modified seeds result in a producer of finer
quality which is no way harmful to the consumer. So, III also does not
hold strong.

Clearly, unscheduled and untimely holidays would naturally cause the
work to suffer. So, argument I holds strong. Also, a holiday is not
necessary to pay homage to someone. So, argument II is vague.

The
students union formation shall be a step towards giving to students the
basic education in the field of politics. However, it shall create the
same political atmosphere in the campus. Thus, both the arguments hold
strong.

Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country
and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more
responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them
education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides,
the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So,
argument III also does not hold.

Our country cannot support USA's policies blindly without analysis, just
to gain monetary help. Also, we should not withdraw our support without
considering the policies, just because some other nations have done so.
So, none of the arguments holds strong.

Courts are meant to judge impartially. So, argument III is vague. The
system of local courts shall speed up justice by providing easy approach
and simplified procedures, and thus ease the burden of the higher
courts. So, I as well as II holds strong

Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be
brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax
Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is
dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with
certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government
coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from
agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both
arguments II and III hold strong.

Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according
to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any
criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument I
is vague. Also, at this level the awarding of degrees is impartial and
simply based on his performance. So, argument II also does not hold.