Statement–Argument (Curbing the Number of Economists Produced): Statement: Should India curb the number of economists it produces? Arguments: I) Yes, the more economists there are, the lower the economic growth becomes. II) No, theoretical work encourages practical progress. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Human-capital planning should follow evidence on labour-market needs and social returns. The statement proposes limiting the number of economists—an extreme control with dubious basis.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No empirical link is provided between the “count of economists” and growth outcomes.
• Economics spans academia, policy, industry, finance, and data science; demand is diversified.
• Education markets can self-adjust via student preferences and job signals.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I asserts a negative causal relation without mechanism or evidence—post hoc reasoning. Argument II offers a slogan-level defence of theory but lacks specificity (how, where, with what impact). Strong arguments need grounded mechanisms and policy relevance.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Claim that “more economists ⇒ less growth” is speculative and illogical (no demonstrated causality)—weak.II: “Theory encourages practice” is too generic without concrete policy mechanisms or labour-market analysis—weak.Conclusion: Neither argument satisfies strength criteria.

Verification / Alternative check:
Workforce planning typically uses enrolment caps or incentives only with demonstrable mismatches; even then, broad bans are rare.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option crediting I or II would endorse unsupported assertions.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating educational diversity with inefficiency; using aphorisms as policy proof.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.