Statement–Argument — Should reputed private driver-training schools be authorised to issue driving licences? Arguments: I. Yes. This will enable more people to obtain licences. II. No. This will increase congestion and cause traffic jams.

Introduction / Context:The core objective of a licensing system is road safety and competence verification, not simply increasing licence counts or modulating congestion.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Proposal: empower reputed private training schools to issue licences.
• I focuses on quantity of licences, not safety/standards.
• II attributes congestion to licensing authority rather than urban planning/vehicle growth/traffic management.

Concept / Approach:Strong arguments must address the true policy goal (competency, impartial testing, integrity). Quantity (I) is not an appropriate success metric; congestion (II) is largely orthogonal to who issues licences.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assess I: More licences without guaranteeing impartial evaluation risks lowering standards; it does not justify changing the issuing authority. Weak.2) Assess II: Traffic congestion is a function of infrastructure, enforcement, modal split—weakly connected to licensing issuer. Weak.3) Therefore, neither argument is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Where private entities are involved, separation of training and testing is standard to avoid conflicts; this nuance is absent in I/II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option selecting I or II as strong misidentifies the policy objective.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing access/volume with safety outcomes; misattributing congestion causes.

Final Answer:If neither I nor II is strong.