Statement–Argument — Should Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) be entitled to dual citizenship? Arguments: I. Yes. It will bolster emotional, cultural, and economic ties between NRIs and India. II. No. The move will not be fruitful for all NRIs because many countries do not allow dual citizenship.

Introduction / Context:
Dual citizenship policy weighs diaspora engagement (capital, skills, networks) against administrative/legal complexity. The question is whether NRIs should be entitled to dual citizenship.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India could enact provisions (or closer analogues) to deepen NRIs’ connection.
• Some destination countries restrict dual nationality.
• The test is the strength and relevance of each argument to the underlying policy.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I cites a primary policy goal—stronger bonds and potential economic benefits—squarely pertinent to the objective of dual citizenship. Argument II claims uneven benefit due to foreign legal limits, but that does not invalidate offering it to those for whom it is legally possible.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: closer affiliation can raise remittances, investment, tourism, philanthropy, and knowledge transfer.2) II is weak: feasibility varying by country does not negate value for eligible NRIs; policy can be extended where reciprocally permitted without harming others.3) Hence, only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many nations deploy tailored diaspora schemes despite heterogenous host-country rules; partial eligibility is common in public policy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” misreads a logistical constraint as a decisive policy refutation; “either/neither/both” misclassify strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a policy must benefit 100% of the target group to be worthwhile.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.