Statement–Argument (Ban Foodgrain Exports During Drought): Statement: Facing an unexpected drought, should the government ban export of all foodgrains for one year? Arguments: I) Yes, otherwise adequate food supply for citizens cannot be ensured. II) No, the government lacks jurisdiction to ban private exporters. III) Yes, the government should stop exports and procure available stocks for domestic use. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:In emergencies, food security can justify temporary trade restrictions and strategic procurement. The key is legality and proportionality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Domestic scarcity risk due to drought.
• States can, under law, regulate exports temporarily for essential commodities.
• Government procurement for public distribution is feasible.

Concept / Approach:I and III directly serve the policy objective (domestic availability). II is factually weak—governments do possess emergency powers within legal frameworks.

Step-by-Step Solution:I: Links export ban to domestic food security ⇒ strong.II: Asserts lack of jurisdiction; in practice, emergency trade measures exist ⇒ weak.III: Procurement and diversion to domestic channels ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Time-bound, targeted restrictions with safety nets align with I and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Including II misstates authority; excluding I/III ignores core objectives.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing normal trade policy with emergency measures.

Final Answer:Only I and III are strong.