Statement: Should India emphasise building sports infrastructure? Arguments: I. No. Investing is futile because our sportspersons often disappoint and fail to perform internationally. II. Yes. For a country of over one billion people, international performance is dismal; we urgently need to foster a sports culture. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Sports infrastructure is a long-horizon public good. Strong arguments should tie investment to capability-building, participation, and performance outcomes, not merely past disappointments.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India’s international outcomes trail population size and potential.
• Infrastructure, coaching ecosystems, and pathways are inputs for performance.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strategic: it connects poor outcomes to the need for foundational investment and culture, aligning with policy goals. Argument I reasons backward from outcomes to deny inputs; it confuses current performance (an output) with the justification for inputs—illogical and demotivating rather than principled.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• II: Strong—investment addresses root causes: facilities, access, coaching, scouting.• I: Weak—uses disappointment to argue against remedy; it neither shows waste nor offers alternatives.

Verification / Alternative check:
Countries that improved in sports typically expanded infrastructure and talent pipelines; II reflects that policy logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including I treats a symptom as a reason to avoid treatment.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating sunk disappointment with future-oriented policy design.

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong.