Statement: Should cricket be made India’s national game, replacing hockey? Arguments: I. Yes. India’s performance in hockey is dismal compared to cricket. II. Yes. Cricket and cricketers receive more recognition than hockey and hockey players. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Designating a national game is a symbolic-cultural policy. Strong arguments should appeal to enduring cultural significance, historical legacy, inclusivity, and educational value—not transient performance or popularity metrics.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The decision is symbolic/normative, not a league-table award.
• Cricket’s popularity and media coverage are high; hockey holds historic identity.

Concept / Approach:Argument I uses comparative performance. But national symbols are not chosen on current win–loss records; performance fluctuates and is orthogonal to symbolism. Argument II cites recognition/popularity; popularity is market-driven and volatile, and does not by itself justify altering a national symbol. Neither argument articulates principles of national identity, heritage, or educational/social goals that would justify the change.

Step-by-Step Solution:• Assess I: Instrumental to sports administration, not to symbolic designation ⇒ weak.• Assess II: Popularity/recognition is a media effect, not a principled criterion for a national emblem ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” might rest on broad cultural integration across regions and history; a strong “No” might rest on continuity of heritage. Neither I nor II makes such principled claims.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option that selects I or II treats mutable metrics as decisive for a symbolic policy.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing market popularity or current form with criteria for national symbolism.

Final Answer:Neither argument I nor II is strong.