Statement–Argument — Should all factories located in cities be shifted to far outskirts? Arguments: I. Yes. This is an essential step to control urban pollution. II. No. Such relocation will cause considerable inconvenience to employees and their families.

Introduction / Context:Urban environmental policy evaluates health externalities and livability. A strong argument must connect relocation to pollution reduction and public health, whereas inconvenience—though real—is not generally decisive against a major public-interest objective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Relocate factories from cities to outskirts.
• Arg I: Pollution control rationale.
• Arg II: Employee/family inconvenience.

Concept / Approach:Arguments anchored in externalities (air quality, noise, congestion) and health impacts are policy-relevant and strong. Inconvenience is a secondary cost that can be mitigated (transport, housing, staggered moves) and thus is weak as a decisive counter-argument.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Arg I: Relocation plausibly reduces pollutant concentration in dense urban cores, improving health outcomes. Strong.2) Arg II: While sympathetic, it does not outweigh public health and can be mitigated; hence weak.

Verification / Alternative check:Many cities adopt zoning to separate heavy industry from residences—consistent with I. Mitigation policies routinely address II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing II or “either/both” would overstate inconvenience relative to environmental necessity.

Common Pitfalls:Overvaluing private inconvenience over public health benefits in policy evaluation questions.

Final Answer:If only Argument I is strong.