Statement–Argument — Should the government allow migrants from other countries to work in India? Arguments: I) No; given widespread unemployment and poverty, allowing foreign workers may aggravate domestic job scarcity. II) Yes; every country must provide livelihoods to all humans irrespective of citizenship. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Migrant work policy balances labor-market needs, humanitarian concerns, and social cohesion. The question asks which argument better addresses a policy decision within a constrained economy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Significant unemployment exists among domestic workers.
• Some sectors may face skill shortages; targeted visas could address them.
• States owe special duties to citizens, while also respecting human rights.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong within this framing: it points to labor-market slack and potential displacement pressures. Argument II asserts a universalist duty that ignores the state’s primary obligation to citizens and resource constraints; it does not propose a calibrated program (e.g., shortage-occupation lists), thus weaker.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Most countries use selective work-visa regimes rather than open access, reflecting the reasoning in I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Neither” overlook domestic slack and typical policy practice.

Common Pitfalls:
Framing the choice as all-or-nothing; targeted migration can coexist with protecting domestic jobs.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.