Anything which hinders the learning process in a child must be controlled and, if possible, be prohibited. The aim of teacher should be to make a child learn. According to argument I, beating causes hindrance to learning process of a child thus defeating the ultimate goal. If also supports its argument by referring to the findings of psychologists. Hence, I is a strong argument. Argument II states that a child will be spoiled if it is not caned. Caning is an extreme measure, there are also other softer methods to rectify a child. Moreover, the argument is not substantiated by any facts. Hence, II is a weak argument.

Statement I: The basic purpose of conducting classes is to help students. Hence, statement I is a strong argument as it conveys this idea.Statement II: If the institute conducts classes with the intention of making profits, then this is a valid point to be considered. Hence, statement II is also strong.

Statement I highlights the advantages of using concrete vis-a-vis bitumen and from if we know that concrete is supreme in every aspect to bitumen and hence it should be used to builds roads. Hence, I is strong.
Statement II gives a similar arguments as in the above case but favouring bitumen. Hence, II is also strong.However, both I and II contradict each other and hence they cannot both be strong at the same time. Hence, either I or II is strong but not both.

It is based on the existing problem and further it will worsen the situation. Hence I is strong. II is simple and it is not giving any reason why it should be encouraged, hence II is not a strong argument.
Only I is strong.

If the new market is going to hamper the regular market then the regular market should over come this by innovative methods, but we cannot discourage the new markets. So, I is not strong. II is based on positive result and desirable. Hence II is strong.
Only II is strong.

Overcoming learning related difficulties is a desirable positive result. Hence, I is strong.
II is based on a positive result as it is very simple and substantially improve the functioning of the brain, which is desirable.Hence II is strong.Both I and II are strong.

Statement I is pessimistic in nature because it says that corruption can never be eliminated, but we cannot check the validity of the statement and we have to take this statement to be true, in which case it is to be admitted that statement I is a strong argument. Statement II is a very strong argument because a person's integrity is a major consideration for giving him or her a job. Both the arguments are strong.

Earning more money is desirable positive result. Hence I is strong. II is simple, and no substantial reason is given, hence II is not a strong argument. Only I is strong.

I is not strong as there is no argument.II is simplistic. II is not strong.Neither I nor II is strong.

I is strong because it states that the existing drainage system will not be sufficient to cater to demand.
II is irrelevant as it is referring to the infrastructure of the city.Only I is strong.