In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement as true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens? Argument I: No, the costs of providing such training will be prohibitive and one year of productive labour will be lost. Argument II: Yes, army training helps develop discipline and responsibility and can help people become better citizens.

Introduction / Context:
This is the classic compulsory army training debate framed as a statement-and-argument question. The statement suggests one year of compulsory army training for all Indian citizens. Argument I opposes the idea on economic and productivity grounds, while Argument II supports it citing citizenship and character-building benefits. Both arguments must be judged individually for strength, irrespective of personal opinion.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should one year of army training be compulsory for all Indian citizens?
Argument I: No, because the cost will be extremely high and one year of productive labour will be lost.
Argument II: Yes, because army training helps people become better citizens by developing discipline and responsibility.
Assume that large-scale training programmes require substantial funding and that military training can positively influence behaviour and discipline.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is:

Relevant to the statement.
Grounded in realistic consequences.
Important enough that decision-makers would consider it seriously.

If both arguments independently meet these criteria but support different sides, then both are strong and the correct code is “if both I and II are strong.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
Examine Argument I: Compulsory army training for all citizens would require facilities, equipment, trainers, accommodation and logistics on a massive scale. This would place a heavy burden on the national budget. Additionally, citizens would be away from universities or jobs for a full year, which means loss of potential economic output. These are realistic, serious concerns, so Argument I is a strong argument against the proposal. Examine Argument II: Military training is known to instil discipline, physical fitness, teamwork and respect for rules. These qualities can help people become more responsible, law-abiding and community-oriented citizens. Countries with conscription often argue that it strengthens social cohesion and civic values. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in favour of the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:
In real policy discussions, both cost and benefit are essential. Ignoring cost would be unrealistic; ignoring benefits to citizenship would also be incomplete. Since both arguments highlight important, realistic effects of compulsory training, both must be regarded as strong in exam reasoning, even though they lead to opposite decisions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument I is strong would neglect the widely recognised social and behavioural benefits that Argument II describes.
Saying only Argument II is strong would ignore the massive financial and productivity cost mentioned in Argument I.
Claiming that neither argument is strong is clearly incorrect because both focus directly on central aspects of the policy.
Saying the strength cannot be decided ignores the clear, real-world logic that underlies both arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes believe that if two arguments conflict, one must automatically be weak. However, many policy questions involve trade-offs where both sides have solid reasoning. Another mistake is to let emotional patriotism or cost consciousness alone dominate; instead, both the economic and civic dimensions should be considered.

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