Statement–Argument — Should the Government provide a subsidy on blended, environment-friendly fuel? Arguments: I. Yes. Subsidy would encourage adoption, reduce oil imports, and save foreign exchange. II. No. Blended fuel is not yet available in all states.

Introduction / Context:Green-fuel subsidies aim to overcome adoption barriers, internalise environmental externalities, and improve energy security.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I links subsidy to uptake, import reduction, and forex savings—core policy goals.
• II cites uneven availability across states.

Concept / Approach:Availability gaps argue for phased rollout, not for rejecting the policy. A strong argument must address the objective; I clearly does, II is logistical and can be handled administratively.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is strong: price support can cross the adoption chasm and yield macro benefits.2) II is weak: supply gaps can be closed over time; they do not negate the rationale.3) Therefore, only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Policies often start in pilot states and scale; this is consistent with I being strong and II not decisive.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/either/neither/both” misclassify the relative relevance.

Common Pitfalls:Treating implementation phasing as a policy refutation.

Final Answer:If only argument I is strong.