Critical reasoning – Policy decision on Indian Railways Statement: Should coal (steam/diesel-hauled) engines be replaced by electric engines in trains? Arguments: I. Yes. Coal engines cause a lot of pollution. II. Yes. Electric engines have better performance, are easier to operate, and require lower maintenance. III. No. India does not produce enough electricity to fulfil its domestic needs as well.

Introduction / Context:
This question tests the ability to judge the strength of arguments in a public-policy setting. The proposal is to replace coal-based traction with electric locomotives in Indian Railways. Strong arguments must be directly relevant, fact-driven or principle-based, and clearly connected to the stated decision.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Coal engines (read broadly as legacy coal/steam or older diesel paradigms) are comparatively more polluting.
• Electric locomotives generally offer superior efficiency and lower operating complexity.
• India’s electricity supply is finite and planned across sectors (railways procure power through dedicated arrangements).

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate each argument for relevance to environmental impact, operational efficiency, and feasibility. Arguments based on blanket assertions or unrelated obstacles that could be managed by policy are weaker.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: Pollution reduction is a central, legitimate objective. Coal combustion has high particulate and emissions. This is a strong, directly relevant argument.Assess II: Electric traction typically delivers higher torque, regenerative braking, simpler operations, and reduced maintenance. This is also a strong, decision-relevant benefit.Assess III: “India does not produce enough electricity” is a broad claim. Rail traction demand is planned through grid purchases and dedicated feeders; efficiency gains from electrification and cleaner grids weaken this objection. Even if supply constraints exist, they can be managed (capacity additions, scheduling). Hence, III is weak as a decisive reason to reject the shift.

Verification / Alternative check:
If electricity supply were stretched, the appropriate policy response is staged electrification plus capacity augmentation, not abandoning a cleaner, more efficient technology.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• All are strong: Incorrect because III is not compelling.
• Only II and III / Only I and III: Include the weak argument III.
• Only I is strong: Undervalues operational and maintenance advantages in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing solvable implementation constraints with fundamental policy objections.

Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong