Should India become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? Arguments: I. Yes, India has emerged as a country that values peace and international harmony. II. No, India should first solve internal problems such as poverty and malnutrition.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your ability to judge arguments about international relations and national priorities. The statement is about India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and two arguments, one in favour and one against, are given. You must decide which argument is strong according to logical reasoning standards used in competitive exams.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: India should become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
• Argument I: Yes, because India has emerged as a peace loving country that values harmony.
• Argument II: No, because India should first solve internal problems like poverty and malnutrition.
• We assume that permanent membership is based on global role, stability and contribution to peace, not only on internal poverty levels.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must be directly related to the decision in the statement, must be realistic and broadly acceptable, and should reflect long term considerations. For matters of international status, arguments about global responsibility and track record are usually more relevant than purely internal issues, unless those issues directly prevent the new role.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider argument I. It connects India's potential permanent membership with its image as a peace loving nation. This is relevant because the Security Council deals with peace and security issues. Step 2: Many permanent members are chosen partly because of their influence and commitment to world peace. So argument I is logical and strong. Step 3: Consider argument II. It shifts the focus to internal problems like poverty and malnutrition. These are serious, but they do not logically prevent India from taking a larger role in world affairs. Step 4: Many existing permanent members also face internal challenges, yet they participate in the Security Council. So argument II is not a strong ground to oppose permanent membership.

Verification / Alternative check:
Ask whether solving poverty is a prerequisite defined in the United Nations Charter for permanent membership. It is not. International influence, economic strength and military capability tend to matter more.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option "Only argument II is strong" is wrong because argument II does not directly relate to the eligibility criteria for membership. Option "Both arguments I and II are strong" is wrong because they do not stand on equal footing; II diverts from the core issue. Option "Neither argument I nor II is strong" ignores the clear relevance of argument I. The option stating insufficient information is unnecessary because we can judge the relative strength of these arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
A common error is to treat every argument that mentions a serious social problem as automatically strong. However, strength depends on logical connection with the decision in question, not just emotional weight.

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