Statement–Argument — Should there be a limit on drawing groundwater for irrigation in India? Arguments: I. No. Irrigation is vital for food production, and many regions rely primarily on groundwater. II. Yes. In several areas, falling water tables pose serious environmental and sustainability risks. III. Yes. International agencies have cautioned India against further groundwater extraction.

Introduction / Context:
Groundwater-policy design balances immediate agricultural needs with long-term aquifer sustainability. India’s agrarian regions often depend on wells and tube-wells; over-extraction risks salinity, depletion, and ecosystem damage.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Irrigation sustains yields, livelihoods, and food security, especially where canals are inadequate.
• Hydrological stress in some basins is acute; recharge is slower than extraction.
• International advice can be informative but is not, by itself, a decisive policy reason without local evidence.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments focus on core objectives and evidence: ensuring food security (I) and preventing environmental collapse (II). An appeal to authority (III) is weaker unless tied to domestic data and actionable mechanisms.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong because groundwater supports cropping where surface irrigation is limited; abrupt limits could hurt production if not sequenced with alternatives (micro-irrigation, crop shifts, canal rehab).2) II is strong due to clear sustainability risks—falling tables, energy-inefficient pumping, and long-run productivity loss—justifying caps, pricing, or permits in stressed blocks.3) III is weak as framed: international cautions matter, but strength derives from domestic hydrology and policy design rather than external warnings alone.

Verification / Alternative check:
Effective regimes pair limits with support: water-efficient tech (drip/sprinkler), crop diversification, real-time monitoring, and power pricing reforms.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“II and III/All/Only II/I and III” misweight an authority appeal (III) over substantive local evidence.

Common Pitfalls:
Adopting blanket bans without transition supports; ignoring basin-level variability.

Final Answer:
I and II are strong.