Statement: Should non-operational airports in India be closed? Arguments: I. Yes. Significant funds are wasted on maintaining idle infrastructure. II. No. The staff engaged in maintenance would lose their work. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Public infrastructure policy should consider cost-effectiveness and opportunity cost. Strong arguments address systemic efficiency, not solely employment displacement (which calls for mitigation, not policy retention).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Non-operational airports entail recurring maintenance expenditure.
• Public funds have alternate uses with higher social return.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I targets fiscal prudence—core to the decision—hence strong. Argument II cites employment effects; while important, job loss is typically addressed through redeployment/compensation. Keeping inefficient assets for the sake of employment is not a sound policy argument here.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strong—addresses waste and reallocation of resources.• II: Weak—raises a transition issue, not a reason to keep idle infrastructure.

Verification / Alternative check:
Closure with transition packages can preserve livelihoods while improving efficiency, reinforcing I’s strength.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II conflate mitigation challenges with policy merit.

Common Pitfalls:
Using employment as a blanket justification for inefficient spending.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.