Statement–Argument — Should coal engines be replaced by electric engines in trains? Arguments: I) Yes; coal engines cause a lot of pollution. II) No; India does not produce enough electricity even for domestic needs. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Transitioning traction technology involves environmental benefits and feasibility constraints. In Statement–Argument problems, opposing arguments can both be strong if each presents a substantive, policy-relevant reason.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Coal locomotives emit particulates and greenhouse gases.
• Electric traction can reduce local emissions but depends on grid capacity and generation mix.
• Electricity scarcity can constrain large new loads without infrastructure upgrades.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is environment-driven and directly relevant—reducing pollution is a legitimate policy goal. Argument II raises a capacity constraint; if the grid cannot meet demand, electrification may strain supply or cause load shedding. Each is a valid, independent consideration.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced decision could proceed with phased electrification alongside generation and transmission expansion, recognizing both strong points.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” or “Only II” ignore the other valid dimension. “Neither” is incorrect because both are policy-relevant.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming environmental desirability alone settles feasibility questions; or, conversely, using constraints to dismiss long-term policy shifts.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.