Statement–Argument — Should parents in India be forced to opt for only one child? Arguments: I) Yes; coercive limitation is the only way to check ever-increasing population. II) No; such pressure tactics are not adopted by other countries. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Population policy involves rights, health, and development trade-offs. This question evaluates the reasoning quality, not personal beliefs. We examine whether each argument gives a compelling policy ground.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Rapid population growth can strain resources and public services.
• Policy instruments range from voluntary incentives to harsh mandates.
• Comparative practice varies; some countries have tried coercive limits historically.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I claims necessity (“only way”). This is an overstatement in strict terms—education, women’s agency, contraception access, and economic changes also reduce fertility. However, in the narrow competitive format, I advances a direct causal lever toward the target (lower births). Argument II commits an appeal-to-practice fallacy: what other countries do is not decisive on merits.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Non-coercive programs have reduced fertility in many places, which tempers I’s “only way” phrasing; yet, judged against II’s weakness, I remains the stronger.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Neither” misclassify a fallacious appeal to practice as strong or deny I’s directness.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating moral acceptability with test logic; here we score argument strength within the given answer set.

Final Answer:
If only Argument I is Strong.