Critical reasoning – Should foreign investment be concentrated in only a few states? Arguments to evaluate: I. No. Concentration contradicts the aim of overall national development. II. Yes. Many states lack infrastructure to attract foreign investment.

Introduction / Context:
The policy question contrasts balanced regional development against pragmatic concentration where readiness exists. Both arguments reflect real policy tensions and can be strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I emphasizes equity and spatial balance—avoiding widening regional disparities.
• II emphasizes feasibility—investors prefer states with infrastructure, logistics, and governance capacity.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments address different but legitimate goals: national cohesion and fairness (I) versus practical constraints and investment efficacy (II). Policy often staggers development—build hubs while upgrading lagging regions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Strong. Concentration can deepen inequality; diffusion of investment supports inclusive growth.Argument II: Strong. Where enabling conditions are absent, initial concentration may be necessary to kick-start growth and demonstration effects.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many countries sequence reforms: attract FDI to ready states, then extend infrastructure and reforms nationwide—validating both positions as strong.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: Each ignores a legitimate dimension of the policy dilemma.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a one-size-fits-all approach; neglecting transition plans for underprepared states.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are strong