In the above question, the following arguments are given

I. Yes. This will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds.

II. No. This is the only way to increase production substantially.

III. Yes. Genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO), mainly crop plants, are increasingly grown worldwide leading to large trade volumes of living seeds and other plant material both for cultivation and for food and animal feed. Even though all the traded GMOs have been assessed for their safety with regards to human and animal health and the environment, there still are some concerns regarding the potential uncontrolled release in the environment of authorized or unauthorized GM plants. In this review, we identify the possible entrance routes of GM seeds and other propagating plant material in the EU which could be linked to unauthorized release of GMOs in the environment. In addition, we discuss the situation with GM plant cultivation in some non-EU countries in terms of potential risks for GM seed imports. The available body of information suggests that GM seeds and plant propagating material can enter the EU due to problems with labeling/traceability of GM seed lots, contamination of conventional seed lots and accidental release into the environment of grains imported for food and animal feed. Even though cases of uncontrolled release of authorized GMOs, as well as, release of unauthorized GMOs have been reported, they can be generally attributed to adventitious and technically unavoidable presence with little environmental impact. In conclusion, the probability of GM seeds and plant propagating material illegally entering the cultivation in EU is unlikely. However, specific monitoring programs need to be established and maintained to facilitate the compliance of European farmers with the current GMO legislation.

Genetically modified seeds have been specially formulated to increase the yield and quality of produce. So, argument II is strong. Besides, increase in production holds much more significance than the sale of domestically produced seeds. Thus, argument I does not hold. Also, the genetically modified seeds result in a produce of finer which is no way harmful to the consumer. So, III also does not strong.

Hence the correct option is B.

In the above question there are three arguments given based on the statement.

According to first argument, The present stock of coal will not last long if we continue mining at the present rate. 

Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong.

According to the second argument, We do not have alternate energy source of sufficient quantity.

It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong.

According to the third argument,This will put millions of people at a disadvantage and their lives will get adversely affected and also the industry.

Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment. So, III also holds strong.

Hence the correct option is B.

Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.

Hence option C is correct.