Statement: Should there be a complete ban on the import of sugar into India? Arguments: I. No. The current production of sugar within India is not sufficient to meet the domestic requirement. II. No. Continuing imports will keep sugar prices under control because the total supply will remain adequate.

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question belongs to the “statement and argument” type. The task is to decide whether each argument in favour of or against the statement is a strong argument. A strong argument is directly related to the statement, fact-based or logically sound, and significant enough to influence a decision. Here the statement asks whether India should completely ban the import of sugar.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should there be a complete ban on the import of sugar into India?
Argument I: No. The current production of sugar within India is not sufficient to meet the domestic requirement.
Argument II: No. Continuing imports will keep sugar prices under control because the total supply will remain adequate.
We assume normal economic conditions where shortage raises prices and adequate supply helps price stability.

Concept / Approach:
We must judge each argument independently on three key aspects: relevance to the question, logical soundness and practical importance. An argument may be strong even if it is against the statement, as long as it gives a serious and realistic reason. Emotional, vague or personal-opinion arguments are treated as weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: If domestic production is not sufficient to meet the requirement, banning imports would create a shortage of sugar in the market. A shortage of an essential commodity has serious economic and social consequences such as black marketing, hoarding and public dissatisfaction. Therefore Argument I gives a direct, logical and important reason against a complete ban. It is a strong argument. Evaluate Argument II: It says that allowing imports will keep prices under control because supply will be adequate. Price stability for a basic commodity like sugar is a major policy concern. Adequate supply is a standard economic tool for controlling prices. Argument II is again directly related to the policy decision and is logically sound and practically significant. Thus Argument II is also a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Both arguments focus on consequences of banning imports: possible shortage and impact on prices. Neither relies on personal preference or extreme assumptions. Both would be considered by policy makers when deciding on import bans. Hence both arguments satisfy the criteria for strength.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the genuine concern about price control raised in Argument II.
Saying only Argument II is strong ignores the serious issue of inadequate domestic production raised in Argument I.
Claiming neither argument is strong is incorrect because both are clearly relevant and logical.
Stating that the strength cannot be determined is wrong because enough information is given to see that both arguments are meaningful and policy-relevant.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to think there can be only one strong argument. In “yes/no” statement-and-argument questions, both a “yes” and a “no” argument can be strong, or two “no” arguments can be strong, if both give serious reasons. Another pitfall is to confuse “I personally agree” with “this is a strong argument”. Strength is about logical weight, not personal opinion.

Final Answer:
Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore, the correct option is If both I and II are strong.