Critical Reasoning – National infrastructure policy Statement: Should India develop a national water grid by interlinking the rivers across the country? Arguments: I. No. This is not possible because we do not have the technical know-how. II. Yes. This will greatly help the entire country by channelizing excess water to water-shortage regions.

Introduction / Context:
In “strong/weak argument” questions, we judge whether an argument is directly relevant, fact-plausible, and policy-useful given the statement. The policy under debate is building a national water grid by interlinking rivers to balance floods and droughts. We must assess the merit of each argument, not our personal opinion on river linking.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The statement asks about a national-level interlinking (policy feasibility and desirability).
• No additional facts are provided about cost, environment, or exact technology.
• We should avoid absolute claims that add unsupported facts.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments are specific, address core decision criteria (benefits, feasibility, risks), and avoid sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions. An argument that says “not possible” requires strong evidence; an argument that describes a clear potential public benefit can be considered strong if it is directly tied to the policy.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
If an argument can stand even when we consider counterpoints (cost, ecology), it remains strong as a benefit proposition. Argument II continues to be relevant; argument I collapses without evidence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I” is wrong because I is an unsupported impossibility claim.
• “Either…/Neither…” are wrong because II is clearly strong.
• “Both” is wrong as I is not strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “strong argument” with forecasting the final policy decision; accepting absolute impossibility claims without evidence.

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong