Should all factories located inside major cities be shifted to the outskirts, far away from the main city area? Arguments: I. Yes, because shifting factories to the outskirts is an essential step for controlling urban air and noise pollution. II. No, because such a step will cause a lot of inconvenience to the employees of the factories and to their families.

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic urban planning question. The proposal is to shift factories from city centres to the outskirts. One argument supports this by citing pollution control, and the other opposes it by mentioning inconvenience to employees and their families. Both sides need to be evaluated.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Factories in cities should be shifted to the outskirts.
• Argument I: Yes, this is essential to reduce urban pollution.
• Argument II: No, because it will create serious inconvenience for employees and their families.
• We assume that both environmental health and social convenience are valid policy concerns.

Concept / Approach:
In these questions, it is possible for both arguments to be strong if each represents a real and important consequence. Shifting factories can significantly reduce pollution, but it can also increase commuting time and disturb social life of workers. Both effects matter to planners.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine argument I. Industrial activity inside crowded cities is a major source of air and noise pollution. Moving factories out can improve urban environment. Step 2: This argument is strong because it directly promotes better health and quality of life for city residents. Step 3: Examine argument II. If factories move far away, many workers may have to travel long distances or even shift housing, which is expensive and disruptive. Step 4: This is also a strong and realistic concern about social impact and workers welfare. Hence argument II is also strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
City planners often conduct impact assessments that include both environmental benefits and human costs. This shows that both types of arguments are taken seriously in real life.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that select only one argument as strong overlook either the environmental or the social dimension. The option that neither argument is strong is clearly incorrect, and the option that the effects cannot be judged is not correct because these are well understood issues.

Common Pitfalls:
Many students assume that if one argument is strong, the other must be weak. In policy questions, this is not always true, and both sides can carry weight at the same time.

Final Answer:
Thus, both arguments I and II are strong, and the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.