Statement–Argument — Should manufacture of firecrackers be completely banned in India? Arguments: I) No; a ban would render thousands of workers jobless. II) Yes; the industry extensively uses child labour, which is unacceptable. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Regulating hazardous industries involves balancing livelihoods and rights/safety. Both arguments point to weighty, policy-relevant considerations: employment loss and elimination of child labour.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Firecracker manufacturing provides livelihoods to many informal workers.
• Child labour is illegal and unethical; any incidence is serious.
• Complete bans have distributional and enforcement consequences.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong because job loss is a core policy impact requiring mitigation (re-employment, reskilling). Argument II is strong because preventing child exploitation is a compelling ground for strict action. Policymakers must consider both simultaneously.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Typical responses include strict labour enforcement, technology upgrades, and phased transitions—reflecting both concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one undervalues the other major impact; “either” understates the dual weight.

Common Pitfalls:
All-or-nothing positions ignoring mitigation strategies.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are strong.