Statement: Should cricket replace hockey as India’s national sport? Arguments: I. Yes. The performance of the hockey team has been dismal in recent years. II. No. Cricket is Australia’s national sport, and two countries should not share the same national sport. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
National symbols reflect heritage and aspiration, not only recent win-loss records or uniqueness relative to other nations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Hockey has deep historical significance in India.
• Sports performance varies over time and should not solely dictate national-symbol status.
• Uniqueness compared to other countries is irrelevant to domestic identity.

Concept / Approach:
Assess whether each argument gives a principled, enduring basis for change.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I is performance-based and transient—poor form today cannot determine a lasting symbol. Weak.II uses a faulty premise (cricket is not officially Australia’s “national sport” in a legal sense) and an irrelevant criterion (sharing symbols). Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Symbol selection typically weighs history, cultural reach, and inclusive identity—neither argument addresses these well.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option endorsing I or II overstates weak reasoning.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing popularity or recent performance with national symbolism.

Final Answer:
if neither argument I nor II is strong