Is the Government justified in spending a large amount of money on defence? Arguments: I. Yes, because the safety and security of the country are of prime importance. II. No, because during peace time this money could be used for the development of the country.

Introduction / Context:
Here, the issue is national defence spending. The question asks whether Government expenditure on defence is justified. One argument stresses national security, while the other suggests diverting funds towards development during peace. You must evaluate which argument is logically strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: The Government is justified in spending a lot of money on defence.
• Argument I: Yes, because national safety is of prime importance.
• Argument II: No, because the same money could be used for development in peace time.
• We assume that threats can arise anytime and that defence preparedness is a continuous requirement.

Concept / Approach:
For national security questions, strong arguments consider long term safety, deterrence and strategic readiness. Development spending is also important, but cutting essential defence outlays simply because there is peace at a given moment may be shortsighted. A strong argument should not ignore the basic duty of the Government to protect its citizens from external threats.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Look at argument I. It states that defence spending is justified because the safety of the country is of prime importance. This is directly linked to the purpose of defence. Step 2: Protection from external aggression and internal threats is a fundamental function of the state, so argument I is logically strong. Step 3: Now consider argument II. It assumes that peace will continue and that defence expenditure can simply be reduced and reallocated. Step 4: This ignores the deterrent role of defence forces and the uncertainty of future threats. Therefore, argument II is not strong enough to reject defence spending.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can cross check by asking if any modern state can safely neglect defence just because there is temporary peace. The answer is clearly no. So argument I stands stronger.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The option that only argument II is strong is wrong because II underestimates security needs. The option that both arguments are strong is wrong because they do not have equal logical value. The option that neither is strong is wrong because argument I is clearly relevant and widely acceptable. The option about insufficient information is not suitable because the nature of the issue itself allows evaluation.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes think that any mention of development or poverty automatically makes an argument strong. In reality, defence and development both matter, and safety is a prerequisite for sustained development.

Final Answer:
Thus, only argument I is strong, so the correct option is the one that selects argument I alone as strong.