Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments num...
I is strong as the surcharge will definitely help the railways in generating funds for the much needed modernization of the railways. On the other hand, such a minor surcharge is highly unlikely to greatly imbalance the budget of an average household. Thus, II is a weak argument.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments num...
Strong vs. Weak Arguments on Levy of Modernization Surcharge by Railways
Argument I: Yes. It will help the railways generate funds for modernization
- This argument is strong because it directly addresses the issue at hand – the need for funds for modernization.
- By levying a small modernization surcharge, the railways can ensure that they have the necessary funds to upgrade facilities and improve services.
- Modernization is crucial for the efficiency and safety of railway operations, making this argument a strong one in favor of the surcharge.
Argument II: No. It will imbalance the budget of an average household
- This argument is weak because it focuses on the potential impact on individual households rather than the overall benefit to the railways.
- While it is important to consider the financial burden on passengers, the primary concern should be the long-term benefits of modernization for the railway system as a whole.
- The argument does not provide a viable alternative for generating funds for modernization, making it a weak argument in this context.
In conclusion, argument I is strong as it directly addresses the need for funds for modernization, which is essential for the railways' operations and services. Argument II, on the other hand, is weak as it focuses on individual households' budgets without offering a solution to the railways' financial needs.