Statement–Argument — Should a poverty-ridden country invest money in hosting international games? Arguments: I) Yes; such events bring countries together and foster coordination and goodwill. II) No; hosting requires huge expenditures that can crowd out poverty-eradication programmes. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Mega-events can catalyze infrastructure, branding, and tourism—but also pose cost overruns and debt risks. In low-income contexts, opportunity cost relative to welfare spending is decisive.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Budgets are finite; funds used for events are unavailable for health, nutrition, and education.
• Intangible diplomatic gains are hard to quantify and may be achieved by cheaper alternatives.
• Event legacies often underperform projections without strong governance.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strong: it highlights a direct and material trade-off with poverty programmes. Argument I is comparatively weak: while goodwill is valuable, it does not show net benefits outweigh opportunity costs in a poverty-ridden setting.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Empirical studies frequently find cost overruns; targeted social investments often yield higher welfare returns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Neither” misclassify the relative persuasiveness.

Common Pitfalls:
Counting gross tourism inflows without netting out full public costs.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.