Statement: Should the government remove all slums in major cities? Arguments: I. Yes. Slums are a nuisance to people living in big cities. II. No. Slum inhabitants are citizens who contribute to the nation’s growth. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Urban policy must balance public health, safety, and upgrading with rights-based development. A proposal to remove “all slums” is absolute and impacts vulnerable groups.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Slum residents provide essential urban labor and services.
• Upgrading (in-situ rehabilitation, services, tenure security) is often better than eviction.
• “Nuisance” is not a policy criterion; public interest requires humane, lawful methods.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should reference citizenship, due process, and development alternatives rather than stigmatizing language.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Labels slums a nuisance without addressing rights or solutions (housing, sanitation, livelihoods). This is not a principled basis for mass removal. Weak.Argument II: Asserts citizenship and contribution, implying rehabilitation and inclusive planning rather than blanket demolition. This is normatively relevant and policy aligned. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice emphasizes upgrading and resettlement, not indiscriminate removal.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Either/both misclassify; neither ignores the clear rights-based rationale in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Using stigma in place of policy; ignoring affordable housing strategies.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong