Statement–Argument (Creation of Small States): Statement: Should smaller states be carved out of larger states in India? Arguments: I) Yes, smaller states enable greater administrative convenience and responsiveness. II) No, creating more states will jeopardise national integration. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Assessing state reorganisation weighs administrative efficiency and local representation against risks of fragmentation and coordination costs. In Statement–Argument items, both sides can be strong when each independently addresses a central policy dimension.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Smaller units may improve governance proximity, reduce span-of-control, and tailor policy to local needs.
• Argument II: Proliferation of states may deepen identity politics, inter-state disputes, or fiscal/administrative fragmentation if poorly managed.

Concept / Approach:
“Strong” arguments are specific, decision-relevant, and offer plausible mechanisms. I targets efficiency/representation; II targets cohesion/capacity. Both are germane to the decision.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Check I: Clear governance mechanism (proximity, responsiveness) ⇒ strong.Check II: Real risk channel (coordination, identity conflicts) ⇒ strong.Hence, depending on context (geography, economy, identity), either can be strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Past reorganisations show successes and strains; outcomes hinge on design (resource sharing, capital location, fiscal transfers).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Picking only one ignores the other's legitimacy; “neither” denies evident trade-offs; “both” would imply simultaneous truth in the abstract—here the question format asks which single side is strong; hence “either.”

Common Pitfalls:
All-or-nothing framing; ignoring transitional arrangements and inter-state councils.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.