Statement–Argument — Should sale of all China-made toys be banned in India? Arguments: I) Yes; very cheap imports will drive domestic manufacturers out of business. II) No; Indian toys are of better quality and will be affected. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Trade policy sometimes restricts imports to protect infant industries or address safety standards. A blanket ban is extreme, yet the arguments must be assessed for strength, not final policy adoption.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Very cheap imports can undercut local producers; policy tools include tariffs, standards, or safeguards.
• If Indian toys are truly higher quality, a categorical “will be affected” argument (II) is contradictory and unpersuasive without showing market failure.
• Consumer safety and WTO rules would also be relevant but are not raised here.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I—though protectionist—identifies a real risk (domestic industry displacement), which is a recognized policy consideration (usually addressed by calibrated measures, not blanket bans). Argument II is weak: if quality is higher, competitive positioning should not rely on banning rivals; the claim is internally inconsistent.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Common responses are safety standards, anti-dumping, or tariffs—not indiscriminate bans—yet I still raises a legitimate concern.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Both” would elevate II; “Neither” ignores I’s policy relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing justification for safeguards with justification for total bans.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.