Statement–Argument (Centre–State Coordination): Statement: Should the Union (Centre) consult a state government before deploying the army in that state for maintaining law and order? Arguments: I) Yes, taking the state into confidence improves cooperation, intelligence sharing, and mission effectiveness. II) No, the Centre is superior to states and enjoys greater powers. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Army deployment for internal security is sensitive and coordination-heavy. Strong arguments should emphasise operational efficacy, legitimacy, and practical cooperation rather than mere assertions of hierarchy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Coordination can enhance terrain knowledge, logistics, and acceptance, raising effectiveness.
• Argument II: Appeals to constitutional hierarchy (Centre above states) without addressing operational outcomes.

Concept / Approach:
Strength in Statement–Argument is judged by relevance and practicality. Argument I provides a substantive, outcome-oriented reason: cooperation improves mission success and reduces friction. Argument II is a bare assertion of authority that does not evaluate the policy’s effectiveness.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Does consulting states plausibly improve deployment outcomes? Yes—intelligence, local policing synergy, and civilian coordination improve.Test II: Does superiority alone imply skipping consultation yields better outcomes? No—the claim is unrelated to feasibility or efficacy.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even urgent deployments often involve quick liaison with states for area familiarisation, rules of engagement alignment, and law-and-order continuity, reinforcing I’s strength.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II lacks operational reasoning; “either” or “neither” misclassifies the relative strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing legal competence with policy wisdom; authority does not negate the benefits of coordination.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.