Critical Reasoning – Safekeeping of national-significance awards Statement: Should individuals/institutions that possess treasures of national significance (for example, Nobel Prizes) hand them over to the Central Government for safe custody? Arguments: I. Yes. Individuals or institutions lack adequate resources to protect them. II. No. These are the property of the winners and should remain in their custody.

Introduction / Context:
This problem examines policy arguments around cultural property and custodianship. We must decide which argument is “strong,” meaning relevant, reasonable, and not based on sweeping or doubtful assumptions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Treasures are privately held by winners or institutions.
• No evidence is given that all private custodians cannot protect them.
• Ownership rights and autonomy are part of the policy context.

Concept / Approach:
An argument is strong if it rests on a sensible principle or clear fact that supports or opposes the proposal without requiring extra assumptions that are not stated or commonly accepted.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if the government could offer better security, compulsory transfer is a separate policy question. Ownership/custody rights remain a valid decisive consideration, sustaining the strength of II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Only I” and “Both” overstate I, which lacks evidence.
• “Either” or “Neither” fail because II is clearly strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming incapacity of all private custodians; equating “may be safer with government” with “must be compulsory.”

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong