Statement–Argument — Should foreign investment be concentrated in only a few states? Arguments: I. No. That undermines balanced, nationwide development. II. Yes. Many states currently lack the infrastructure to attract foreign investment.

Introduction / Context:
The policy question balances efficiency (go where feasible) with equity (distribute gains). Each side can provide a strong, context-dependent rationale.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Balanced regional development is a legitimate national objective.
• II: Practical constraint—some states lack infrastructure; concentration may maximize near-term returns.

Concept / Approach:
Both arguments address central policy objectives and are individually strong; they are, however, mutually opposed, leading to the “either” key in standard reasoning sets.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: regional disparities can worsen if investment clusters excessively.2) II is strong: investors follow infrastructure and skills; concentration can act as a growth pole.3) Because both are valid yet conflicting, the correct evaluation is “either I or II is strong.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Policymakers often adopt hybrid approaches: phased concentration plus incentives to expand later.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/II” ignores the contrary, legitimate objective; “both” implies concurrent adoption despite incompatibility.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring transitional strategies that reconcile equity with feasibility.

Final Answer:
If either I or II is strong.