Statement–Argument (Public Funding & Federal Process): Statement: Should the Central Government release social justice and empowerment funds directly to NGOs when a state government fails to send requisitions? Arguments: I) Yes, many NGOs have grassroots presence and experience utilising Central funds routed via states. II) No, without the state's channel, the ministry cannot reliably verify NGO work and will face practical oversight problems. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
When states do not requisition Central funds, the Centre faces a delivery dilemma: route funds directly to NGOs to keep schemes alive, or avoid bypassing state mechanisms to preserve accountability. A “strong” argument must be relevant and policy-grounded.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Posits NGOs’ grassroots capacity and prior experience, supporting direct release to maintain service continuity.
• Argument II: Raises verification, audit, and coordination risks if the Centre bypasses states.
• We are not judging political preferences; only argument strength and relevance to feasibility and safeguards.

Concept / Approach:
Both I and II address the crux: service continuity versus oversight. I is relevant because capacity at the last mile can prevent program collapse. II is relevant because fiduciary controls, duplication/ghost beneficiaries, and monitoring challenges can escalate without state mediation.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Check I for relevance and practicality: leveraging NGOs can be a stop-gap to protect beneficiaries—this is a strong pro argument.Check II for risk and implementability: due diligence and accountability are core to public finance—this is a strong con argument.Since both independently meet strength criteria, the correct meta-choice is that either I or II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public finance commonly weighs delivery continuity (I) against control/oversight (II). Depending on context (crisis vs routine, existing NGO vetting), either side could reasonably prevail, confirming both as strong.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one ignores the other’s substantive policy basis; “neither” disregards clear practical considerations.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that a “Yes” argument must be stronger than a “No” argument; in policy, both can be strong in different conditions.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.