Statement–Argument — Should there be a complete ban on setting up thermal power plants in India? Arguments: I) Yes; this is the only way to prevent any further addition to environmental pollution. II) No; there is already a huge electricity shortage in many parts of the country, so generation capacity must be augmented. III) No; many developed countries continue to establish thermal power plants. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Thermal power plants (coal, gas, oil) are large contributors to air pollution and greenhouse gases, but they also supply a significant share of baseload electricity. Statement–Argument questions judge the relevance, breadth, and realism of each argument. A strong argument should be policy-relevant and not hinge on obvious exaggerations or non-sequiturs.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India faces peak-demand gaps and regional power deficits.
• Thermal plants add pollution but also provide dispatchable capacity.
• Alternatives (renewables, storage, nuclear, hydro, efficiency) are growing but unevenly available.

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate whether each argument gives a sound policy reason. Absolute claims such as “only way” are suspect when multiple tools exist (emissions controls, fuel switching, renewables, efficiency). Appeals to practice elsewhere are weak when they ignore domestic constraints and goals.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Balanced pathways generally combine accelerated renewables and storage, efficiency, transmission build-out, and targeted thermal retrofits, rather than a sudden blanket ban. This corroborates II as the only clearly strong argument here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I is absolutist and ignores other pollution-control levers. III is comparative without analysis of suitability. “None” ignores the real capacity concern in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a single lever (“ban everything”) solves a multi-constraint problem.

Final Answer:
Only II is strong.