Introduction / Context:
Budget allocation between defence and development is a classic public-finance dilemma. A strong argument should directly support or oppose the proposition with principles that hold generally, not on a narrow, conditional basis that sidesteps strategic realities.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I places national security as paramount, a foundational responsibility of the state.
- II assumes a state of peace and diverts funds, but peace itself often depends on credible defence and preparedness.
- The question is not about “any” defence spending but “so much” — still, the reasoning must recognize deterrence needs.
Concept / Approach:
- Deterrence and readiness require sustained investment even in peacetime.
- Opportunity cost exists, but II’s logic is conditional and overlooks the role of defence in sustaining peace.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I is strong because national safety underpins all other development objectives; inadequate defence may jeopardize sovereignty and stability.Argument II is weak; it presumes peace is guaranteed without considering deterrence and strategic commitments, thus not a robust refutation.
Verification / Alternative check:
Many nations maintain steady defence outlays in peacetime to preserve readiness, technology, and alliances.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II / Both / Either / Neither: These misjudge the relative strengths; II is not sufficiently grounded.
Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring that preparedness costs are paid during peace to avoid paying higher costs during conflict.
Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong
Discussion & Comments