Clearly, defence is necessary for the safety of the country, which is of prime importance. So, argument I holds. Also, a country can concentrate on internal progress and development only when it is safe from external aggressions. So, argument II does not hold.
Clearly, laws are made to ensure that no person pursues the practice. So, persons who violate the laws need to be punished. Thus, argument I holds. A wrong practice, no matter how firmly rooted, needs to be ended. So, argument II is vague.
For the all-round progress of the nation, all the students, especially the talented and intelligent ones, must avail of higher education, even if the government has to pay for it. So, only argument II holds.
Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for longer durations (the rate of interest being the same for short durations) and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
Teaching in vernacular medium would surely make it easy for students to grasp. But the use of 'only' in argument I makes if invalid. Also, teaching in international language would open up more avenues for students - in procuring books and study material, in going abroad for studies as well as taking up jobs which require interaction with people of different nationalities. So, argument II holds strong,
An equitable distribution of foreign investment is a must for uniform development all over the country. So, argument I holds. Also, no backward state ought to be neglected, rather such states should be prepared and shaped up to attract. Foreign investment as well. So, II does not hold.