Statement–Argument — Should the government levy tax on agricultural income in India? Arguments: I. Yes, that is the only way to fill the government's coffers. II. No, because around 80% of the population lives in rural areas.

Introduction / Context:
In statement–argument problems, a “strong” argument is relevant, fact-based or principle-based, and directly addresses the policy question. It should neither rely on exaggerations nor on irrelevant statistics. Here, the policy is whether agricultural income should be taxed; the task is to judge the quality of each argument, not to decide tax policy ourselves.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy under test: Levy tax on agricultural income.
• Argument I: It is the only way to fill the government’s coffers.
• Argument II: A large proportion (~80%) of people live in rural areas.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should present a necessary and sufficient rationale (e.g., equity, administrative feasibility, revenue-efficiency, incidence effects) or a clearly relevant harm/benefit. Speculative or absolute claims (“only way”) and population shares that do not logically bear on the norm/principle are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate Argument I: “Only way to fill coffers” is an extreme absolute claim. Government revenue has many sources (direct taxes, indirect taxes, non-tax receipts). The assertion is factually untenable and commits the “false dilemma” fallacy. Hence, I is weak.2) Evaluate Argument II: The rural population share is not, by itself, a principled reason against taxing agricultural income. Relevance would require pointing to equity (small/marginal farmers), administrative costs, seasonal volatility, or alternative thresholds/exemptions. Mere demography is tangential. Hence, II is weak.3) Because neither argument provides a cogent, policy-relevant justification, neither is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider how a stronger “Yes” could be framed (e.g., “Yes, above an income threshold to ensure horizontal equity with non-farm earners”). Consider how a stronger “No” could be framed (e.g., “No, due to high compliance cost and income volatility—opt for presumptive schemes”). Compared with these, the given I and II lack substance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I” accepts an absolute, factually incorrect premise.
• “Only II” mistakes demographic magnitude for policy logic.
• “Either I or II” requires at least one strong argument; neither qualifies.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing size of affected group with validity of policy; accepting sweeping absolutes without evidence.

Final Answer:
If neither I nor II is strong.