Statement–Argument — Should luxury hotels be banned in India? Arguments: I) Yes; international criminals operate from such places. II) No; affluent foreign tourists would have no suitable place to stay. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Banning an entire hospitality segment is extreme. Security risks should be managed via policing and compliance, not by prohibition that harms tourism and business travel.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Luxury hotels support tourism receipts, conferences, and employment.
• Criminals can misuse many venues; targeted enforcement is appropriate.
• Total bans impose heavy economic costs without addressing root causes.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is weak: it generalizes from abuse to prohibition. Argument II is strong: it highlights a core function (accommodation for high-spend visitors) whose removal harms the sector and economy.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice is rigorous KYC, surveillance, and cooperation with law enforcement—not bans.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Granting weight to I legitimizes over-broad collective punishment.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing targeted enforcement with blanket prohibition.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.