Statement: Should one year of army training be made compulsory for all Indian citizens? Arguments: I. No. The costs of providing such training will be prohibitive and one full year of productive labour will be lost. II. Yes. Army training helps to develop discipline and responsibility and can help people become better citizens.

Introduction / Context:
This question is about mandatory national military service. The statement proposes one year of compulsory army training for all Indian citizens. Argument I opposes this based on cost and loss of labour, while Argument II supports it for its benefits to citizenship and discipline. We must judge each argument independently for strength, not choose which policy we personally prefer.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens?
Argument I: No. The training costs will be prohibitive and one year of labour will be lost.
Argument II: Yes. Army training helps to make better citizens by developing discipline and responsibility.
We assume that the state must consider both economic costs and social benefits when making such a decision.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must be relevant, realistic and significant. Argument I focuses on economic and productivity costs, which are central in policy-making. Argument II emphasises social and civic benefits, which are also important. If both positions present real trade-offs, both can be regarded as strong arguments, even though they support opposite conclusions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Examine Argument I: Providing one full year of army training for an entire population would require enormous spending on infrastructure, instructors, equipment, food and accommodation. Additionally, people would be taken away from regular jobs, studies or other productive activities for that year, meaning a loss of economic output. These are major practical concerns that any government must consider before introducing compulsory military service. Thus, Argument I is a strong argument against the proposal. Examine Argument II: Army training usually includes physical fitness, discipline, teamwork, respect for rules and a sense of responsibility towards the nation. Many countries that use conscription argue that it strengthens national unity and produces citizens who better understand defence and civic duties. These are substantial social benefits, especially for a diverse country where shared values and discipline are important. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in favour of the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:
In real-world debates, both kinds of arguments appear frequently: critics emphasise costs and economic disruption, while supporters highlight discipline, character building and national integration. Neither argument is superficial or off-topic. That is exactly the pattern of a question where both arguments are considered strong within exam logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the real civic and social benefits of training mentioned in Argument II.
Saying only Argument II is strong disregards major economic constraints and opportunity costs.
Claiming that neither is strong is clearly wrong because both address central issues involved in such a policy.
Saying the strength cannot be judged from the statement is incorrect, since general knowledge about costs and benefits of conscription is sufficient to see that both arguments are substantial.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes think that because two arguments oppose each other, only one can be strong. Another common mistake is to favour whichever side appears patriotic while ignoring hard economic realities, or to focus only on financial cost and dismiss social benefits as “soft”. In exam reasoning, both types of considerations are valid and can coexist as strong arguments on opposite sides.

Final Answer:
Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore, the correct option is if both I and II are strong.