Statement–Argument (Population Policy & Ethics): Statement: Should India make it compulsory to sterilise every woman going for a second delivery? Arguments: I) Yes, it is the only way to reduce population growth rapidly. II) No, it would be a cruel, coercive act against natural rights and bodily autonomy. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Public policy on fertility touches fundamental rights, ethics, and feasibility. A strong argument must show practical viability and/or rights-based justification consistent with democratic norms.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Claims compulsion is the “only way”—an extreme assertion requiring strong evidence and ignoring alternatives (education, contraception access, economic incentives, women’s workforce participation).
• Argument II: Emphasises cruelty, coercion, and violation of bodily autonomy—core constitutional/ethical concerns.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is weak: “only way” overgeneralises, neglecting proven non-coercive levers. It neither addresses rights nor demonstrates implementability without massive harm. Argument II is strong: it invokes widely accepted rights-based principles; compulsory sterilisation would be coercive with high risk of abuse and inequity.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I’s exclusivity claim: multiple policy tools exist, so “only way” is untenable.Assess II’s rights claim: bodily autonomy and informed consent are fundamental in modern health policy—compulsion directly contravenes them.Therefore, II is strong; I is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Global demographic transitions have been achieved via education, access to reproductive health, and empowerment, undermining I’s “only way.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I lacks evidence and ignores alternatives; “either/neither” would misread the clear rights-based strength of II.

Common Pitfalls:
Accepting extreme claims without examining feasible, humane alternatives.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.