Statement–Argument — Should smaller cricketing nations with limited history be allowed to play in the World Cup? Arguments: I. Yes. Inclusion globalises the game and broadens competitive participation. II. No. It will upset records established in tougher, more challenging contexts.

Introduction / Context:
Tournament participation rules weigh inclusivity, development, and competitiveness. The World Cup’s mission includes growing the sport globally.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Smaller nations seek exposure to raise standards.
• Records evolve with formats and opposition quality.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I ties directly to a recognised objective: global development of the game. Argument II focuses on preserving records—an ancillary consideration that should not trump developmental aims.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: participation drives investment, pathways, and fan growth.2) II is weak: records are descriptive outcomes, not policy determinants; competitive balance can be addressed via qualification tiers.3) Hence, only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many sports use qualifiers and seeding to balance inclusion and competition—consistent with I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Prioritising records (II) misconstrues the purpose of sport development.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing statistical purity with policy objectives.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.