In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must assume the statement is true even if it conflicts with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should mango export be banned in order to bring down domestic prices for consumers within the country? Argument I: Yes, because environmentalists and dieticians encourage eating only local fruits. Argument II: No, because exports bring in valuable foreign currency for the nation.

Introduction / Context:
This question asks you to judge the strength of two arguments related to an economic policy proposal. The proposal is to ban mango export so that domestic prices fall. Strong arguments in such questions must be relevant to the goal stated in the question and should bring in important economic, social, or practical consequences. Weak arguments are usually emotional, loosely related, or based on secondary issues that do not actually decide the policy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The statement proposes a ban on mango exports to bring down domestic prices.
• Argument I links this idea to environmentalists and dieticians who encourage eating only local fruits.
• Argument II argues against the ban because exports bring in valuable foreign currency.
• We assume that policymakers care about both domestic prices and foreign exchange income.

Concept / Approach:
We must check each argument against the specific purpose of the ban and against broader public interest. A strong yes argument here should explain how banning export will significantly reduce prices or produce health and environmental benefits that justify the economic cost. A strong no argument should show that banning export will create serious economic loss or other negative consequences. An argument that merely echoes a preference for local fruits, without connecting it clearly to prices or national benefit, is weak. In contrast, an argument that highlights foreign exchange earnings directly addresses national economic interest and is usually considered strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Argument I. It says environmentalists and dieticians encourage eating local fruits, which is about health and environment, not directly about price or export policy.Step 2: The argument does not show that banning export is necessary to follow this advice, because people can still choose local fruits even when exports continue.Step 3: Therefore Argument I is not very relevant to the decision of whether a ban on export is a good economic policy.Step 4: Evaluate Argument II. It points out that exports bring in valuable foreign currency, which is a clear and very important economic benefit at national level.Step 5: A policy that bans export would reduce foreign exchange earnings, so this argument presents a serious negative consequence and is a strong argument against the ban.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider whether Argument I, if accepted, is enough to justify a ban. The health and environment goal could be achieved by awareness campaigns without stopping exports, so the ban is not shown to be necessary.Argument II links the proposal directly to a national level economic cost, which policymakers must consider before banning exports.Hence, only Argument II qualifies as strong.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because Argument I is not strong; it is only loosely related to the policy.Option C is wrong because both arguments are not strong at the same time; one is clearly weaker than the other.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument II, is clearly relevant and significant.

Common Pitfalls:
Test takers sometimes confuse popularity of an idea, such as eating local fruits, with policy strength about export bans.Another mistake is forgetting that export decisions are made at national level, where foreign currency earnings are a major factor.

Final Answer:
Therefore only the second argument gives a strong and relevant reason, so the correct answer is if only argument II is strong.