Statement–Argument — Should a trouble-torn state (e.g., Jammu & Kashmir) release separatist leaders without any conditions? Arguments: I. Yes. A goodwill gesture could help calm tensions and promote peace. II. No. Unconditional release may aggravate the situation since these leaders have shown no flexibility in their views.

Introduction / Context:
Conflict-management policy balances de-escalation gestures against security and signaling risks. The question is about unconditional release.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: goodwill gesture can help peace (generic claim).
• II: lack of demonstrated flexibility raises risk of renewed mobilisation or hardline messaging post-release.
• No mention of monitoring, dialogue framework, or conditionality.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments must be proximate to likely outcomes. A blanket goodwill claim (I) lacks mechanism and conditions; II identifies a concrete risk tied to actors’ current posture, directly relevant to the unconditional aspect.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate I: Absent conditions or a structured process, a bare goodwill release may not improve incentives. Weak.2) Evaluate II: Points to escalation risk if positions remain inflexible; this is a salient, policy-grade concern. Strong.3) Therefore, only II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Common practice is conditional release within a peace-talks framework (dialogue timelines, verifiable commitments), which underscores II’s relevance to “unconditional.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/either/both” overstate a generic hope without structure; “neither” ignores material risk.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating goodwill with effective conflict resolution absent credible commitments.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.