Statement–Argument — Should only reputed NGOs be authorised to distribute Public Distribution System (PDS) commodities? Arguments: I. Yes. Reputed NGOs can improve on-ground execution and curb leakages/black marketing, making PDS more effective. II. Yes. NGOs have supported the government on many occasions.

Introduction / Context:
PDS aims to deliver essential commodities to targeted beneficiaries while minimizing leakage and diversion. The proposal is to empower only “reputed NGOs” to distribute PDS items. The evaluation hinges on whether the argument is specific, policy-relevant, and aligned with PDS objectives.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Reputed NGOs” implies capacity, community trust, and oversight readiness.
• Leakages/black marketing have historically plagued last-mile delivery.
• Argument I claims effectiveness in implementation; Argument II cites a generic history of NGO support.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should tie the authorisation change to measurable outcomes such as reduced diversion and improved service quality. Generic praise or history is insufficient without causal linkage to the policy goal.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Assess I: It is specific to PDS goals (execution, leakages, black marketing). It aligns with monitoring-based contracting and performance metrics. Strong.2) Assess II: “NGOs have helped earlier” is a broad assertion and not a sufficient policy reason for exclusivity in a critical welfare function. Weak.3) Hence, only Argument I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Hybrid models (fair-price shops, community institutions, tech-enabled tracking) often use performance conditions—consistent with I’s focus on effectiveness.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/either/both” overvalue a generic claim; “neither” ignores the clear relevance of I.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating NGO reputation in general with demonstrated PDS delivery capability; ignoring accountability mechanisms.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.