Should there be legal restrictions on the migration of people from one state to another within India? Arguments: 1. No, because every Indian citizen has the right to live in any part of the country and cannot be stopped from doing so. 2. Yes, because restricting migration is a way to achieve an equitable distribution of resources across different states.

Introduction / Context:
This question concerns internal migration within India. The issue is whether there should be restrictions on people moving from one state to another. One argument cites citizens rights, and the other mentions equitable distribution of resources. You must determine which argument is strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: There should be restrictions on migration between states in India.
• Argument 1: No, because every Indian has the right to live anywhere within the country.
• Argument 2: Yes, because restrictions can help distribute resources fairly across states.
• We assume that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement and residence for citizens.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should be based on fundamental principles like constitutional rights or clearly established cause and effect. Argument 1 directly refers to a core right of citizens. Argument 2 uses an uncertain and speculative claim that restricting migration will automatically balance resources, which is not necessarily true.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It correctly states that citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in India, subject to reasonable restrictions only in special cases. Step 2: This is a strong argument because it is grounded in constitutional principles. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It assumes that restricting migration will lead to equitable distribution of resources. In reality, resources depend on economic policies, governance and natural factors, not simply on where people live. Step 4: Hence, argument 2 is weak and not a convincing reason to restrict a basic freedom.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can cross check by asking whether any modern democracy uses migration restrictions primarily to balance resources. The answer is almost always no.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The option that only argument 2 is strong is wrong because 2 is speculative. The option that both are strong wrongly treats them as equally valid. The option that neither is strong is also wrong because argument 1 is clearly solid. The option that the impact cannot be judged is not correct because we can judge the strength of the reasoning given.

Common Pitfalls:
Sometimes students get attracted to phrases like "equitable distribution" without checking if the mechanism suggested is realistic.

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