Statement–Argument (Mergers & Precedent): Statement: Should Company X be allowed to merge with Company Y? Arguments: I) Yes, the Hindustan Lever–Lipton merger was a success. II) No, mergers can damage morale in the company that becomes subordinate (“second fiddle”). Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
M&A evaluation is fact-specific (synergies, antitrust, culture fit). Citing a past success elsewhere is a weak generalisation. Employee morale and integration risks are central to post-merger performance, making that line of reasoning stronger.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Uses an external precedent without linking similarities (markets, assets, culture).
• Argument II: Points to a common merger risk—morale loss in the acquired/subordinate entity—affecting productivity and retention.

Concept / Approach:
Strength requires decision-relevant analysis. Unqualified precedent (I) is weak; integration risk (II) is substantial and outcome-relevant.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Does external success predict this case? Not without comparability—weak.Test II: Identifies a typical failure mode with operational consequences—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many mergers fail due to cultural misfit and morale issues; highlighting this is materially relevant.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” overrates I; “neither” underrates II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming one success story is a universal template.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.