Statement–Argument — Should the government hike postal rates? Arguments: I) No; many poorer citizens rely on postal services, and higher rates would impede their communication. II) Yes; sustained losses from under-priced services harm public finances and service quality. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Tariff setting for public utilities trades off affordability and cost recovery. Both social access and fiscal sustainability are valid objectives, and policy tools can balance them.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Postal services support inclusion, identity proofs, remittances, and small parcels.
• Chronic losses can degrade infrastructure and reliability.
• Cross-subsidy, targeted concessions, and tiered pricing are available instruments.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: equity demands that essential communication remain affordable. Argument II is also strong: without realistic tariffs, service quality and reach may fall. Because both present legitimate, independent concerns, either can be considered strong, with the optimal policy likely blending modest hikes with concessions.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many postal systems use concessional stamps for the needy while adjusting commercial parcel rates.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the other compelling dimension; “Neither” denies evident policy trade-offs.

Common Pitfalls:
Arguing for blanket subsidies without service-quality funding, or for blanket hikes without protection for the poor.

Final Answer:
If either I or II is strong.