Statement–Argument — Should our country extend generous goodwill to erring and nagging neighbours? Arguments: I) Yes; goodwill often pays dividends in the long run. II) No; generosity may be perceived as weakness. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Foreign policy weighs engagement benefits against deterrence and signalling. Both arguments identify plausible strategic effects—positive reciprocity vs. adverse signalling—each relevant depending on context.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Goodwill can facilitate negotiations and reduce tensions.
• Concessions without reciprocity can embolden adversarial behaviour.
• Policy calibration depends on counterpart behaviour and leverage.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I (long-run dividends) is policy-relevant. Argument II (weakness perception) is also relevant in deterrence theory. Each can be strong under different situational readings.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Practical policies mix goodwill with conditionality—confirming that both concerns can matter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” rejects a valid strategic dimension; “Neither” denies realism.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming one doctrine fits all scenarios.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.