Critical reasoning — recalling Indian scientists working abroad: Should Indian scientists who are working overseas be called back to India, with one view insisting they must serve the motherland irrespective of honours or facilities, and the other asserting that India already has enough talent and individuals may remain where they wish?

Given data

• Statement: Call back Indian scientists working abroad?
• Argument I (Yes): They must serve the motherland first and ignore discoveries, honours, and facilities.
• Argument II (No): India has enough talent; let them stay where they want.

Concept/Approach (normative vs. evidentiary strength)
A strong argument should provide objective, policy-relevant reasons (capacity, impact, incentives), not purely emotional appeals or unsupported blanket claims.

Step 1: Assess Argument I
It is value-laden and dismisses scientific productivity considerations (infrastructure, collaboration, impact). Lacks evidence and ignores practical trade-offs; hence weak.

Step 2: Assess Argument II
Asserts “we have enough talent” without support and treats the issue as mere personal preference; it neither addresses national capability nor brain-gain policies. Hence weak.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II is strong.