Critical reasoning – Should vehicles older than 15 years be rejected (barred) in Indian metros? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. This would significantly reduce urban pollution levels. II. No. Owners would struggle to relocate and may not find suitable jobs elsewhere.

Introduction / Context:
The policy question relates to environmental regulation in metros. We must weigh arguments based on public health, feasibility, and relevance to the stated aim (reducing pollution) rather than private inconvenience unrelated to the policy goal.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I links the ban to a clear environmental benefit—lower emissions from older vehicles.
• II focuses on the personal difficulty of owners relocating and finding jobs.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should connect directly to pollution reduction, air quality, and health outcomes. Arguments about relocation hardships may inspire mitigation policies (scrappage incentives, exemptions), but they do not negate the environmental rationale.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Older vehicles typically emit more pollutants due to outdated technology and wear. Removing them meaningfully lowers emissions in densely populated metros. Strong.Argument II: The claim about relocation and jobs is speculative and not logically tied to environmental objectives. Owners are not required to relocate; alternative compliance paths (retrofit, scrappage compensation) could exist. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public-interest environmental measures are commonly justified by health and air quality data (I). Private inconvenience (II) can be addressed by transition support, not by rejecting the policy outright.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Either / Neither / Both: Incorrect because only I directly substantiates the policy.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating individual hardship with a decisive policy argument; ignoring compensatory mechanisms.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong