In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true even if it appears to conflict with commonly known facts, and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should songs be eliminated entirely from commercial Indian movies? Argument I: Yes, because Hollywood movies are successful hits despite having no songs. Argument II: No, because songs help to increase the overall length and running time of the movie.

Introduction / Context:
This problem belongs to the statement and argument type of logical reasoning questions. You are given a policy style question about eliminating songs from Indian movies and two short arguments that support either the yes or no side. Your task is to decide which arguments are strong, that is, which arguments are logically relevant, fact based, and directly address the statement in the Indian context, without being emotional, vague, or side tracking the issue.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The main statement asks whether songs should be eliminated from Indian movies.
• Argument I says yes because Hollywood movies are hits even though they usually have no songs.
• Argument II says no because songs help to increase the length of the movie.
• In this type of question a strong argument must be relevant to the decision and consider its impact, not just mention unrelated facts.

Concept / Approach:
To test strength, we ask whether an argument directly helps a policy maker decide for or against the proposal. A useful argument should either show a clear benefit or harm, or highlight a serious practical consequence. It should also be appropriate to the context. Copying a practice from another industry or country without examining cultural and economic differences is normally considered weak. Similarly, mentioning a side effect like increasing length, without explaining why that is good or bad, is not persuasive. We therefore evaluate each argument for relevance and depth, not just for having some connection to movies.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Argument I. It simply compares Indian movies with Hollywood movies and notes that Hollywood films are successful without songs.Step 2: The Indian film industry has a different culture and audience; songs are often part of storytelling and marketing, so copying Hollywood is not automatically sensible.Step 3: Argument I does not show that songs harm Indian movies or that removing them will improve quality, so it is not a strong argument.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says songs help increase the length of the movie, but it does not explain why longer length is desirable.Step 5: Simply increasing length is not a valid reason to keep songs, because length by itself does not guarantee better entertainment or value, so Argument II is also weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong yes argument would mention reasons like cost, attention span, or global market demands, which Argument I does not fully do.A strong no argument would mention audience expectations, revenue from music, or cultural importance, which Argument II also fails to do.Thus neither argument meets the standard of a strong, logically relevant justification.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because Argument I relies on a shallow comparison and ignores the special nature of Indian cinema.Option B is wrong because Argument II does not explain why increased length is a benefit worth preserving.Option C is wrong because if each argument is individually weak, both together cannot become strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Many learners mistakenly treat any argument that mentions the topic as strong, without checking actual decision value.Another pitfall is to think that if Hollywood is successful, following it is always wise, which is not necessarily true in reasoning questions.

Final Answer:
Since both arguments are weak and do not give solid reasons for or against removing songs from Indian movies, the correct choice is if neither I nor II is strong.