Statement–Argument — Does President’s Rule in a state improve law and order in disturbed areas? Arguments: I) Yes; the Chief Minister does not know how to cope with deteriorating law and order. II) President’s Rule is better than rule by the State Government. Select the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The question evaluates whether central takeover (President’s Rule) improves law and order. A strong argument must present structural, general reasons—such as clearer command hierarchy, emergency powers, or resource advantages—rather than ad-hoc blame or sweeping superiority claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• President’s Rule replaces the elected state executive with central administration.
• Law-and-order outcomes depend on policing capacity, coordination, resources, and governance quality.
• Blaming a particular Chief Minister or proclaiming blanket superiority lacks generality.

Concept / Approach:
Arg I is personalized and assumes incompetence without evidence. Arg II is a universal comparative claim (“better than”) without reasons (legal powers, deployment capability, etc.). Both fail the strength test of relevance + sufficiency.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “Yes” would cite specific advantages (rapid paramilitary deployment, unified command). A strong “No” would cite institutional disruption or accountability loss. Neither is present here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” or “Only II” wrongly elevate weak claims; “Either” presumes both are strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating blame or general superiority claims as policy analysis.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.