Statement & Argument — Should MNCs that do not set up plants locally and only market products at low prices be delicensed? Arguments: I. Yes; such models generate little local employment and do not significantly contribute to domestic capacity. II. No; consumers benefit widely from lower prices and greater choice.

Introduction / Context:
The policy dilemma pits domestic industrialization and jobs against consumer welfare from competitive pricing. An argument is strong if it appeals to a legitimate macroeconomic objective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• MNCs selling without local production create fewer direct jobs and limited supply-chain spillovers.
• Lower prices and variety increase consumer surplus and can discipline domestic producers to improve.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I emphasizes employment and local capacity—valid industrial-policy goals. Argument II emphasizes consumer welfare—core competition-policy concern. Each can independently justify a “Yes” or “No” policy stance depending on priorities.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Employment/capacity rationale — strong.II: Consumer-surplus rationale — strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Hybrid policies (local content rules, phased manufacturing programs) can balance both aims; that does not erase the individual strength of I or II.

Final Answer:
Either Argument I or II is strong.