Statement–Argument — Will the Cauvery River water dispute finally be settled? Arguments: I) Yes; politicians of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will reach a satisfactory political settlement. II) No; each state prioritizes its own interests, so the dispute will be prolonged. Identify the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
This item asks for predictive arguments about a long-running inter-state river-water dispute. In Statement–Argument reasoning, strong arguments should rely on general principles, structural reasons, or widely applicable evidence rather than wishful thinking or blanket pessimism.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The dispute involves multiple actors (two state governments, central institutions, courts/tribunals).
• Settlements can arise via legal adjudication, negotiated sharing formulas, or political agreements.
• Pure predictions without underpinning reasons are typically weak.

Concept / Approach:
We test each argument for specificity, sufficiency, and logical support. A strong argument should give a structural reason (e.g., institutional mechanism, binding enforcement) rather than merely assert “will” or “won’t.”

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “Yes” could have cited binding adjudication or water-sharing frameworks with compliance monitoring. A strong “No” could have cited structural deadlocks despite such frameworks. Neither argument provides this.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” or “Only II” over-credit speculative claims. “Either I or II” treats both as strong, which they are not.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing confident tone with strong logic; predictions require mechanisms, not merely assertions.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.