Statement–Argument — Three million tonnes of foodgrains vanished from Food Corporation granaries. Should the officials explain it to the people? Arguments: I) No; such losses are routine and do not deserve explanation. II) Yes; large-scale bungling by public officials must be accounted for because it is the public’s loss. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Public accountability over essential commodities is fundamental. Massive unexplained losses undermine trust, distort markets, and harm welfare schemes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The quantity lost is enormous and atypical of acceptable shrinkage or spoilage.
• Public funds and food security are implicated.
• Transparency deters future misconduct and enables corrective action.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strong: it anchors on accountability, transparency, and stewardship of public resources. Argument I attempts to normalize serious loss and rejects scrutiny, which is contrary to good governance; therefore it is weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Audit, vigilance, and public reporting are standard mechanisms for such incidents.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Neither” deny the imperative of accountability.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing routine shrinkage with systemic leakage.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.