Statement–Argument (Government Investment in Infrastructure): Statement: Should the government invest in infrastructure? Arguments: I) Yes, infrastructure is the backbone of the economy and enables growth and productivity. II) No, doing so would mean the state assumes too big a role. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Infrastructure (transport, power, logistics, digital networks, water) is foundational for private investment and public services. The question asks whether the state should invest.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Infrastructure exhibits public-good traits, network effects, and long payback periods.
• Private provision alone may underinvest due to externalities and coordination failures.
• Government can crowd in private capital via PPPs and risk-sharing.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I links investment to growth-enabling externalities and productivity—clear, decision-relevant, and specific. Argument II merely asserts “too big a role” without explaining why scale per se is harmful or proposing alternatives; it is vague and not compelling on its own.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong—identifies infrastructure as a growth engine and valid public investment domain.II: Weak—lack of mechanism; size concerns can be addressed through PPPs, fiscal rules, and independent procurement—not by abstention from investment.

Verification / Alternative check:
Successful economies combine public backbone assets with private participation; this corroborates I while showing II is not a decisive objection.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Crediting II without substance would be rhetorical; “either/neither/both” misclassifies the clarity of I vs vagueness of II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing governance quality problems (corruption, delays) with the principle of public investment.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.