Should the railways in India be privatised in a phased manner, like other public sector enterprises? Arguments: 1. Yes, because privatisation is a way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to passengers. 2. No, because privatisation often leads to wastage of resources.

Introduction / Context:
This question is about economic reforms and privatisation of Indian Railways. Two arguments are given, one that highlights competition and service quality, and another that vaguely mentions wastage of resources. You must decide which argument is strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Railways in India should be privatised in a phased manner.
• Argument 1: Yes, privatisation brings competitiveness and better services.
• Argument 2: No, privatisation leads to wastage of resources.
• We assume that any major reform should be justified with clear, concrete reasoning.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument gives a specific and relevant reason. In discussions about privatisation, standard pros include competition, efficiency and improved services. Standard cons include loss of control or increased prices, but these must be presented clearly. Vague claims without explanation are not considered strong arguments.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It links privatisation to competitiveness and better services, which is a recognised and logical outcome in many sectors. Step 2: This argument is relevant and based on well known economic reasoning. So argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It simply says that privatisation leads to wastage of resources but does not explain how or why. Step 4: Without specific reasoning, this statement looks like a loose claim and therefore is a weak argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Ask whether a policy maker could rely on argument 2 alone. Because it lacks details, it would not be persuasive. Argument 1, however, could be part of a serious policy discussion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The option that only argument 2 is strong is wrong because 2 is vague. The option that both arguments are strong wrongly treats them as equal. The option that neither is strong is incorrect because argument 1 is clearly relevant. The option that the issue cannot be decided is also not appropriate, as we are not making a real policy decision, only evaluating the arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes think that any argument against privatisation is strong if they personally oppose privatisation. In exams, you must judge the quality of reasoning, not your personal views.

Final Answer:
Hence, only argument 1 is strong, so the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.