Statement: Should all slums in big cities be demolished and residents relocated outside city limits? Arguments: I. No. Residents would lose home and livelihood; relocation can cause severe hardship. II. Yes. Big cities need space for development; slums should be removed. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument or arguments.

Introduction / Context:Urban policy must reconcile development with the rights and welfare of informal residents. Both welfare protection and urban expansion present plausible, policy-relevant grounds in different planning frames.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Slum areas often lack tenure security but house critical urban labor.
• Relocation risks income loss if moved far from workplaces.
• Cities require land for infrastructure and public utilities.

Concept / Approach:We test whether each argument can reasonably be considered strong under a coherent policy aim: human cost minimization versus urban capacity creation.

Step-by-Step Solution:I: Strong under a rights/welfare lens; highlights real displacement and livelihood impacts.II: Strong under a development lens; addresses macro-level spatial needs.Since both can be strong depending on the governing objective, the correct meta-choice is that either can be considered strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Modern practice uses in-situ upgradation, serviced plots near jobs, and participatory planning to balance I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one ignores the legitimate force of the other in its policy frame; choosing neither is too dismissive.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming demolition or status quo are the only choices; ignoring integration options.

Final Answer:if either Argument I or II is Strong.