Statement–Argument (Rail Ticketing on Trains): Statement: Railways should introduce bus-like conductors to sell tickets on running trains. Arguments: I) Yes, it would significantly reduce ticketless travel. II) No, it complicates procedures and raises costs (conductor salaries, supervision) compared to the existing system. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Operational reforms must weigh compliance benefits against cost/complexity. This is classic cost-benefit reasoning; both sides can be strong if they speak to measurable outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Links on-board conductors to higher compliance and reduced fare evasion.
• Argument II: Warns of staffing costs, supervision, and workflow complexity relative to TTE/ETM models.

Concept / Approach:
A strong “Yes” cites enforcement and revenue protection; a strong “No” cites costs and process burden. Both are relevant and decision-oriented.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I addresses the benefit side—less evasion ⇒ more revenue.II addresses the cost/feasibility side—additional payroll/logistics ⇒ higher OPEX.Because each independently targets a key decision dimension, either can be strong depending on context.

Verification / Alternative check:
Pilots with handheld ETMs and targeted checks are common middle paths; the presence of viable alternatives reinforces that both concerns are substantive.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one ignores the other's material relevance; “neither” denies obvious trade-offs.

Common Pitfalls:
Framing choices as all-or-nothing; ignoring hybrid models (selective conductors, random checks).

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.