Statement–Argument (Public Enterprise Reform): Statement: Should Indian Railways be corporatised? Arguments: I) Yes, autonomy can enable quicker decisions, clearer accountability, and operational modernisation. II) No, corporatisation is futile unless archaic appointment rules and favouritism end first. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Corporatisation debates focus on autonomy, governance, and service quality. A strong argument should evaluate how the proposed change affects decision-making, accountability, and outcomes—rather than shift the goalpost.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Directly links corporatisation to autonomy and agility, plausible drivers of performance improvement.
• Argument II: Says it is “futile unless” appointment practices change—this critiques a different, though related, reform track and does not show corporatisation itself is bad or unhelpful.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong because it evaluates the proposal on its intended merits: governance reforms leading to faster decisions and clearer accountability. Argument II is comparatively weak—it conditions success on another reform but does not negate the value of corporatisation; both reforms can proceed in tandem.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Check relevance: I is directly about corporatisation outcomes; II is about appointments generally.Assess strength: I offers a mechanism (autonomy ⇒ agility ⇒ performance).Conclusion: Only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even without perfect HR reforms, corporatisation can still rationalise budgets, KPIs, and customer-focus, yielding gains.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II does not counter the proposal; “either/neither” misstate the relative strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Rejecting a reform because other complementary reforms are pending.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.