Each question below consists of a statement followed by two arguments numbered I and II. Decide which argument is strong. Statement: Is global warming a real threat to the world? Arguments: I. Yes, it leads to serious consequences such as sea level rise, extreme heat, heightened wildfire risk, drought and other water supply issues. II. No, global warming is only a misconception created by some people.

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question asks whether global warming is a real threat and presents two arguments. A strong argument must be consistent with widely accepted evidence or reasoning and should give a meaningful basis on which to decide the issue. You are not debating scientific details but judging which argument is reasoned and which is dismissive or unsupported.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Is global warming a real threat?
Argument I: Yes. It causes consequences such as rising sea levels, extreme heat, wildfire risk, drought and water-supply issues.
Argument II: No. Global warming is merely a misconception created by some people.
We assume that mainstream scientific understanding recognises climate change and global warming as serious environmental concerns.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should:

Be specific and explain why the statement should be accepted or rejected.
Be in line with credible information or at least plausible reasoning.
Avoid sweeping, unsupported denials.

Among these two arguments, one cites specific consequences consistent with scientific reports, while the other simply dismisses global warming without evidence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It states that global warming leads to sea level rise, extreme heat, higher wildfire risk, drought and water-supply issues. These are widely documented effects associated with climate change in scientific studies and policy documents. The argument is detailed, specific and directly explains why global warming is a real threat. Therefore, Argument I is a strong argument supporting the statement. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that global warming is merely a misconception. It provides no reasoning, examples or evidence to justify this denial. The argument directly contradicts the widely accepted scientific consensus without offering any serious counterbasis. Thus, Argument II is weak and cannot be considered a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even without deep scientific knowledge, you can see the pattern: Argument I explains why something is a threat by listing real-world consequences. Argument II simply asserts that the whole idea is a misconception, with no logical support. In exam reasoning, arguments that merely deny a problem without justification are typically considered weak.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument II is strong clearly conflicts with both logic and widely known information about climate change.
Claiming both arguments are strong would treat a detailed, evidence-based concern as equal to an unsupported denial, which is unreasonable.
Saying neither is strong ignores the specific and realistic points made in Argument I.
Suggesting that the strength cannot be assessed is incorrect; the quality and detail of Argument I make its strength clear.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates may think that because there is “debate” about global warming in media, any claim against it must be taken as strong. In logical reasoning, strength depends on explanation and support, not on mere existence of opposing opinions. Always favour arguments that provide clear, concrete reasons over those that simply dismiss or affirm without evidence.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong. Therefore the correct choice is Only argument I is strong.