Statement–Argument — Should the Cabinet revise allocation criteria for funds to states under the Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme? Arguments: I) Yes; patterns of use have changed rapidly, and per-capita consumption has increased; criteria must adapt to present realities. II) No; changing criteria will burden the budget. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Resource allocation formulas must reflect demographic shifts, usage patterns, scarcity, and equity. The issue is whether to update criteria for rural water funding.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Water demand evolves with population, livelihoods, climate variability, and infrastructure.
• Outdated criteria can misallocate scarce funds, hurting outcomes.
• Budgets are finite but can be reprioritized; better formulas can also improve efficiency.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong because it ties policy change to evidence-informed adaptation. Argument II is weak because “budget burden” is generic; any improvement can be claimed to burden the budget. The question is about criteria, not total outlay; revised criteria can reallocate within the envelope or even save costs by targeting need.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Public finance best practice updates formulae periodically (e.g., population weights, scarcity indices), aligning with I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Neither” misclassify the strength differential; “Only II” ignores the need for responsive governance.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming any change equals higher spending rather than smarter allocation.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.