Statement–Argument — Should there be a restriction on constructing high-rise buildings in India’s big cities? Arguments: I) No; large Indian cities lack adequate open land to house a growing population, so vertical growth is essential. II) Yes; only builders and developers benefit from high-rises. III) Yes; government should first strengthen infrastructure for existing buildings before permitting new high-rises. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Urban planning must balance density, liveability, and infrastructure capacity. Building higher is a common response to land scarcity, but unchecked vertical growth can strain water, sewage, transport, and emergency services. We assess which arguments are policy-relevant and sufficiently reasoned.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Big cities face rising population and limited open land.
• Infrastructure (roads, transit, utilities) may already be at or beyond capacity in many areas.
• High-rises concentrate demand vertically and can magnify peak loads.

Concept / Approach:Argument strength turns on relevance and realism. Generalized benefit-to-builders claims (without public-interest linkage) are weak; arguments addressing land economics and infrastructure sequencing are stronger.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Best practice ties floor-area ratios and approvals to infrastructure benchmarks (transit-oriented development, impact fees). This aligns with I and III being strong in different directions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:II lacks public-interest reasoning. “Only I” ignores infrastructure constraints; “Only III” ignores land scarcity.

Common Pitfalls:Framing the issue as pro- or anti-developer instead of capacity-aligned growth.

Final Answer:I and III are strong.