Statement–Argument — Should cottage industries be encouraged in rural areas? Arguments: I) Yes; rural people are creative. II) Yes; it helps to solve unemployment to some extent. Identify the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Encouraging cottage industries is a rural-development policy question. Strong arguments should be programmatic (employment, incomes, local value addition) rather than generic praise of a population.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cottage industries can generate local jobs with modest capital.
• Reducing underemployment is a key rural objective.
• Creativity varies individually; blanket claims are not policy grounds.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is a broad compliment and not a policy mechanism. Argument II targets a recognized development outcome—employment creation—directly relevant and measurable. Hence II is strong and I is weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Impact evaluations often measure jobs/incomes, not “creativity,” reinforcing why II is the stronger justification.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” would over-credit I; “Neither” ignores II’s strength; “Only I” is clearly insufficient.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing positive trait assertions with policy justifications.

Final Answer:
if only Argument II is strong.