Statement–Argument — Should India engage in dialogue with neighbouring countries to reduce cross-border tension? Arguments: I. Yes. Structured dialogue is an effective way to reduce terrorism and prevent loss of innocent lives. II. No. Neighbouring countries cannot be relied upon; they may still engage in subversive activities.

Introduction / Context:
International security policy weighs deterrence, diplomacy, and trust-building. We judge whether each argument is a sound policy reason.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Advocates structured dialogue as a mechanism to de-escalate and coordinate security steps.
• II: Argues unreliability of neighbours, implying talks are futile.

Concept / Approach:
An argument is strong if it provides a constructive, policy-relevant mechanism. Dismissing talks because counterparts may misbehave is a non sequitur; negotiations often proceed precisely when trust is low, supported by verification.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: dialogue can establish communication channels, confidence-building measures, and crisis protocols; it directly addresses de-escalation.2) II is weak: the risk of bad faith does not negate the value of talks; verification and conditionality exist to manage such risks. The argument offers no superior alternative.3) Hence, only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Track-I/Track-II processes and CBMs are widely used tools alongside deterrence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” undervalues diplomacy; “either/neither” misclassify I’s relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating counterpart risk as a reason to abandon all engagement.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.