Statement–Argument (FDI Policy): Statement: Should MNCs be allowed to start 100%-owned subsidiaries in India? Arguments: I) Yes, neighbouring countries have permitted it. II) No, India’s entrepreneurial ecosystem needs protection. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:Policy on 100% FDI must weigh competition, technology transfer, market access, local capability building, and strategic autonomy. A strong argument references these effects, not mere imitation of neighbours.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Appeals to what neighbours do—irrelevant unless tied to outcomes for India.
• Argument II: Cites protection for domestic entrepreneurship—relevant to market structure, MSME survival, and innovation incentives.

Concept / Approach:Argument strength turns on policy consequences. I is weak as an appeal to authority/tradition elsewhere. II addresses domestic development and competitive balance, thus policy-relevant.

Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Lacks causal link between neighbours’ choices and India’s welfare.Evaluate II: Points to safeguarding local enterprise capacity—directly germane to FDI policy.

Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” would cite consumer surplus, investment spillovers, and safeguards; here, only II meets strength criteria.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Picking I or “either/neither” misreads that only II gives a substantive policy ground.

Common Pitfalls:Copying policies without context; ignoring domestic capability effects.

Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.