National priorities — is heavy defence expenditure justified? Statement: Is the Government justified in spending so much on defence? Arguments: I. Yes — the safety of the country is of prime importance. II. No — during peace, this money could be used for development.

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:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:

Final Answer: