Statement: Should only nuclear power be used to generate electricity? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce air pollution to a great extent. II. No. Radioactive materials used in nuclear plants are unsafe for large-scale use. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The proposition is extreme: “only” nuclear power. Strong arguments must address portfolio risk, reliability, safety, cost, waste, and emissions with proportionate reasoning.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Nuclear is low-carbon but has capital, waste, and risk-management challenges.
• Diverse grids use multiple sources (solar, wind, hydro, gas/peakers, storage) to balance variability and baseload.
• “Only” one source increases systemic risk.

Concept / Approach:
Check whether the arguments justify exclusivity (only nuclear) rather than inclusion (nuclear as part of a mix).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Reducing air pollution is true for nuclear relative to fossil fuels, but it does not support “only nuclear.” The same pollution goal is met by a diversified low-carbon mix (nuclear + renewables + storage). Hence I is insufficient for exclusivity. Weak.Argument II: “Unsafe for large-scale use” is an overgeneralization. With modern designs and regulation, risk can be managed. It argues for caution and standards, not outright rejection of nuclear (and certainly not against “only nuclear” specifically). As phrased, it is sweeping and weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced portfolio approach (renewables, nuclear where feasible, demand-side measures, storage) is typical policy. Neither I nor II justifies the extreme stance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Picking I or II alone, or either/both, overstates their strength. Both fail proportionality.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “low pollution” with “exclusive solution”; using absolute safety claims without nuance.

Final Answer:
if neither argument I nor II is strong