Statement–Argument (Bar >15-Year Vehicles in Metros): Statement: Should vehicles older than 15 years be barred from Indian metros? Arguments: I) Yes, this significantly lowers urban air pollution. II) No, owners will find it very difficult to relocate to other parts of the country. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:Urban air quality policy targets high-emitting sources. Older vehicles typically lack modern emission controls; restricting them is a direct pollution measure. Difficulty of relocation is not a decisive public-interest reason.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Links age limits to emission reduction—relevant to public health.
• Argument II: Focuses on owner inconvenience, not environmental outcome or alternatives (scrappage incentives, retrofits).

Concept / Approach:Strong arguments serve the policy objective (air quality). I does; II is an inconvenience claim that can be mitigated by policy design.

Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: Clear mechanism—older fleets emit more ⇒ bar reduces pollutants ⇒ strong.Assess II: Non-outcome rationale and addressable via support schemes ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:Phased scrappage and retrofit programs reflect the same logic as I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either/neither” misreads salience; “only II” neglects public-interest primacy.

Common Pitfalls:Overweighting individual inconvenience over collective health outcomes.

Final Answer:if only Argument I is strong.