Start learning 50% faster. Sign in now
The argument assumes that mandatory morning meetings will increase productivity by improving collaboration. Let’s evaluate each option: Option A: Supports the idea that mornings are good for engagement, which strengthens—not weakens—the argument. Option B: Also strengthens the argument by linking communication and productivity. Option C: Directly weakens the claim. If employees lose time for focused individual work due to meetings, then the meetings might actually reduce overall productivity, not improve it. Option D: Talks about improved sales but does not show causality linked to the meeting policy. Irrelevant. Option E: Encouraging issue-raising during meetings is neutral or supportive, not weakening.
Which section of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Leading questions?
What is the legal status of a contract where the performance of the agreed-upon act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible or unlawful due to a...
A person from Pakistan residing in Karachi deceived the complainant in Mumbai through written communication, phone calls, and telegrams, persuading them...
Part IV A of the Indian Constitution deals with_________________
The Supreme Court in the landmark case of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP held that
Specific relief can be granted for enforcing__________________
Which provision of the Court Fees Act, 1870 prescribe mode of levy of court fee in the case of multifarious suits?
A owes B Rs 1000/- but the debt is barred by the Limitation Act. A sign a written promise to pay B Rs 500 on account of debt:
Questions to corroborate evidence of a relevant fact:
In what circumstances are facts, not otherwise relevant, considered relevant?