Statement–Argument — Have economic reforms proved effective? Arguments: I) Yes; there has been a substantial improvement in GDP growth. II) No; the observed progress is mainly due to favorable monsoons. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Attribution is central to policy evaluation. GDP growth can reflect structural reforms (investment climate, competition, trade) or exogenous shocks (weather for agrarian economies).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Reforms aim to raise productivity and potential output.
• Monsoons heavily influence agriculture, income, and demand.
• Short-term growth can mask underlying drivers without deeper analysis.

Concept / Approach:
Both arguments can be strong in principle. Argument I cites macro outcomes consistent with reform effects. Argument II raises a credible alternative explanation (weather), urging caution in attributing causality. Without more data (sectoral breakdowns, multi-year trends), each stands as a reasonable policy claim; thus, “either.”

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Robust evaluation would use counterfactuals and sectoral analyses to separate monsoon effects from reform impacts.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” prematurely assign causality; “Neither” denies reasonable hypotheses.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing correlation with causation; ignoring agriculture’s weight in demand cycles.

Final Answer:
If either I or II is strong.