Arguments evaluation (priority: adult education vs. compulsory education): Should adult education programmes be given priority over compulsory education? Analyse—(I) No: adult education will also help the success of compulsory education; (II) Yes: priority would help eliminate adult illiteracy—checking internal consistency and relevance to the specific “priority” question.

Given data

• Decision: Whether to prioritise adult education over compulsory education.
• Argument I (No): Says adult education will also help compulsory education—this actually favours adult education and contradicts its own “No”.
• Argument II (Yes): Priority would directly reduce adult illiteracy—relevant to the question.

Concept / Approach
For a “priority” choice, a strong argument must address why the prioritised programme needs urgent attention or yields critical spillovers. Internally inconsistent reasoning is not strong.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: I is self-contradictory: its reasoning supports, rather than opposes, priority—hence weak.Step 2: II straightforwardly connects priority to the objective (eliminating adult illiteracy)—hence strong.

Verification / Alternative
Adult literacy has immediate socio-economic returns (health, livelihoods, voting), justifying priority in some contexts.

Common pitfalls

• Overlooking contradictions between an argument’s stance and its justification.

Final Answer
Only argument II is strong.