Statement–Argument (Market-Linked Fuel Pricing): Statement: Should oil companies be allowed to fix petroleum-product prices based on market conditions? Arguments: I) Yes, it is the only way to make oil companies commercially viable. II) No, this will raise essential commodity prices and burden the masses. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:Fuel pricing reforms face a classic trade-off between fiscal/commercial viability and consumer inflation. In Statement–Argument items, both sides can be strong when each addresses a core objective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Market-linked pricing aligns costs and revenues, limiting under-recoveries and cross-subsidies.
• Argument II: Fuel is a universal input; price rises transmit to food/transport, hurting households.

Concept / Approach:Viability and affordability are both policy goals. I is strong for financial sustainability; II is strong for distributional impact. A strong policy blends price freedom with targeted support (DBT, lifeline slabs).

Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: Correct causal link between market pricing and viability.Assess II: Correct causal link between fuel prices and inflation burden.Hence, both are strong in different dimensions.

Verification / Alternative check:Many systems pair deregulation with safety nets—evidence that both concerns matter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one ignores the other's material relevance; “neither” is untenable.

Common Pitfalls:False dichotomy between deregulation and welfare; ignoring targeted transfers.

Final Answer:if both I and II are strong.