Critical reasoning – Should agriculture in rural India be mechanized? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. Mechanization leads to higher production. II. No. Many villagers would become unemployed.

Introduction / Context:
Mechanization affects productivity, costs, seasonality, and rural employment. Both arguments raise substantive, policy-relevant consequences and therefore can be strong simultaneously, reflecting a real trade-off.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Mechanization can increase yields per labor-hour, timeliness of operations, and overall efficiency.
• II: In labor-surplus regions or seasons, rapid mechanization can reduce demand for manual labor, risking unemployment.

Concept / Approach:
Policy analysis acknowledges multiple valid impacts. The strength of each argument rests on different objectives: productivity growth (I) versus inclusive employment (II). Both are legitimate public goals.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Strong. Equipment like tractors, harvesters, and planters improve timeliness and scale, typically raising output and lowering unit costs.Argument II: Strong. Without safety nets, skilling, or diversified rural opportunities, mechanization can displace workers, exacerbating rural distress.

Verification / Alternative check:
Optimal policy usually blends phased mechanization with employment programs, agri-services, and skilling—recognizing the validity of both concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: Each dismisses a legitimate side of the trade-off.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming productivity gains automatically translate into shared prosperity; ignoring transitional impacts on labor.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are strong