Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Should India engage into a dialogue with neighbouring countries to stop cross border tension? Arguments : I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the cross border terrorism and stop loss of innocent lives. II. No. Neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, they may still engage in subversive activities.

The correct answer is: Only argument I is strong.

Argument I is strong because it provides a clear and logical reason why India should engage in a dialogue with neighbouring countries to stop cross border tension. The argument states that dialogue is the only way to reduce cross border terrorism and stop the loss of innocent lives. This is a valid point, as dialogue can help to build trust and understanding between countries, which can in turn lead to a reduction in violence.

Argument II is weak because it does not provide a clear and logical reason why India should not engage in a dialogue with neighbouring countries. The argument states that neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon in such matters, and that they may still engage in subversive activities. However, this argument does not provide any evidence to support these claims. It is possible that neighbouring countries could be relied upon to engage in good faith dialogue, and it is also possible that they would not engage in subversive activities even if a dialogue were to take place. Therefore, argument II is not a strong argument.

In conclusion, only argument I is strong. Argument II is weak because it does not provide a clear and logical reason why India should not engage in a dialogue with neighbouring countries.