Statement–Argument (Nuclear vs Joint Families): Statement: Are nuclear families better than joint families? Arguments: I) No, joint families ensure greater security (support, shared risk, child/elder care). II) Yes, nuclear families ensure greater freedom (privacy, flexibility, faster decisions). Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
This is a value-and-trade-off question. “Strong” arguments cite concrete advantages aligned to clear family outcomes, not absolute claims that one type is always superior.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Joint families spread financial and caregiving risks, enhancing security.
• Argument II: Nuclear families increase autonomy, privacy, and speed of household decisions.

Concept / Approach:
Both sides present legitimate, mechanism-based benefits. Therefore, both are strong in their own dimension; the “better” choice is context dependent (work mobility, eldercare needs, urban costs).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Map I to outcomes: risk pooling and built-in support ⇒ security.Map II to outcomes: autonomy and adaptability ⇒ freedom.Conclusion: Both arguments are strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Hybrid arrangements (nearby extended family) show both principles matter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Picking only one ignores the other’s clear merit; “either” underplays simultaneous validity.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming one model universally dominates; neglecting life-stage variation.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are strong.