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.

In the above question, the following arguments are given

I. Yes. They are equally capable.

II. No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.

III. Yes. They should also go into the outside world.

As we today mark UN Women’s Day, it is worth considering what the inequality between men and women costs South Asian countries and what can be done about it. 

One big cost of inequality is that South Asian economies do not reach their full potential. In Bangladesh, for example, women account for most unpaid work, and are over represented in the low productivity informal sector and among the poor. Raising the female employment rate could contribute significantly to Bangladesh achieving its goal in 2021 of becoming a middle-income country. Yet even middle-income countries in South Asia could prosper from more women in the workforce. Women represent only 34 percent of the employed population in Sri Lanka, a figure that has remained static for decades.

Improvements in the education and health of women have been linked to better outcomes for their children in countries as varied as Nepal and Pakistan. In India, giving power to women at the local government level led to increases in public services, such as water and sanitation.

Just as the costs of inequality are huge, so is the challenge in overcoming it. The gaps in opportunity between men and women are the product of pervasive and stubborn social norms that privilege men’s and boys’ access to opportunities and resources over women’s and girls’.

In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against their will. They too have the right to be self - dependent. Besides, present - day women are well looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while does not.

Hence the correct option is D.

In the above question, the following arguments are given

I. Yes. This is the only to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases.

II. No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants.

III. No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on human body.

IV. Yes. It is banned in many other countries also.

Every time you have a can of aerated drink (read cola/ fizzy drinks) you get the pleasure for a while, but,we are unknowingly subjecting our body to innumerable risks.

• Until 1950's soft drink used a drug called lithium citrate that was used to treat some mental illnesses.
• Use of artificial sweetener also leads to diabetes and thus children should be strictly restricted from consuming all kinds of aerated drinks.
• One can of soft drink contains 3 times a child's recommended maximum daily intake of sugar. This leads to undue pressure on organs, resulting in a number of lifestyle diseases.
• When tired, stop consuming soft drinks and go for fresh juices and water. One glass of aerated drink can decrease your metabolism 2 times and also destroys fat burning enzymes.
• Consumption of soft drink spikes the blood sugar instantly that further leads to insulin burst and in return liver converts it to fat leading to obesity.
• Soft drinks are the leading cause of tooth decay. In general the pH level of most soft drinks is 3.2 which is quite high. The acid and sugar in drink react with tooth enamel and damage them.
• Quite a few studies say that use of artificial sweeteners like saccharin and sucralose decreases the chances of pregnancy in women. And the presence of caffeine decreases the sperm count in men and in many cases it decreases the quality too. So, both diet and regular soft drinks are harmful.

The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid. Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intake of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless its harmful effects have been proved. So, III holds strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by the other countries. So, IV also does not hold.

Hence the correct option is C.