These posts are supposed to be short and they may familiarise you with the way lawyers and judges evaluate arguments.
Argument 1) Prime Minster also said that there should be zero tolerance to Naxalites. Therefore we should have zero tolerance for Naxalites.
Analysis: This is a weak argument. Prime Minister is an authority. Since what he said must have value, we should follow what he said. This is an weak argument. This is a "Mr. So and so said so, therefore it should be so" type weak argument.
No other reason is given why we should have zero tolerance.
Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted unless some more reasons are given.
28/05/13 23:54
