Statement: Should smaller states be carved out of bigger states in India? Arguments: I. Yes. It will enhance administrative convenience. II. No. It will jeopardize national integration. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
State reorganization weighs governance reach, cultural-linguistic factors, fiscal viability, and service delivery.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Smaller administrative units can reduce center-to-periphery distances.
• National integration is protected by constitutional structures; new states have formed without harming unity.

Concept / Approach:
Judge which argument is specific and causally linked to the policy aim.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I focuses on administrative convenience—a core goal of reorganization—with plausible mechanism (faster decisions, targeted programs). Strong.II warns of jeopardized integration but offers no mechanism; federalism can maintain unity with proper safeguards. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Past reorganizations (on linguistic/administrative lines) coexisted with national integrity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II alone, either, or both misclassify strengths; neither ignores the clear relevance of I.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming fragmentation equals disintegration.

Final Answer:
if only Argument I is strong