Statement–Argument — Should there be more than one High Court in each Indian state? Arguments: I. No. Establishing additional High Courts would waste taxpayers’ money. II. Yes. Additional High Courts could reduce the huge backlog of cases pending for long periods.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal considers expanding judicial capacity. A strong argument directly addresses access to justice, pendency, efficiency, or fiscal prudence with a clear link to outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Cost-centric objection without weighing access/efficiency gains.
• II: Claims more courts can reduce backlog and delays.

Concept / Approach:
Justice-delivery outcomes (pendency, proximity, speed) are core. A blanket “waste” claim is weak unless it shows inefficacy; improving capacity is directly relevant to the problem stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I is generic; it does not refute that added capacity can meaningfully reduce delays or improve access. Weak.2) Argument II ties additional benches/courts to pendency reduction, which is central and plausible. Strong.3) Hence, only II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Backlog reduction strategies commonly include more judges/benches and process reforms.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” undervalues access; “either/neither” misrate II’s pertinence.

Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking justice access for narrow cost objections.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.