Statement & Argument — Should building of big dams be stopped immediately? Arguments: I. Yes; big dams can induce notable seismographic effects and associated risks. II. Yes; they require large-scale eviction and displacement of people from their native habitats.

Introduction / Context:This item asks for an immediate halt to big-dam construction, assessing two “Yes” arguments. Strong arguments should point to significant risk or social cost that, standing alone, could justify a moratorium. Here, both seismic risk and mass displacement are independently weighty considerations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Large reservoirs can create reservoir-induced seismicity in some geologies.
• Big projects often entail resettlement, with livelihood, cultural, and ecological impacts.
• No countervailing mitigation or compensation scheme is specified in the stem.

Concept / Approach:Argument I cites a safety risk (public-protection objective); Argument II cites social justice and human-cost considerations. Each is a legitimate policy ground to justify stopping or pausing projects. Because either concern—if critical enough—can independently warrant a halt, the correct evaluation is that either argument is strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: Safety risks related to seismicity are material—strong.Assess II: Large-scale displacement is a serious harm—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:In practice, governments may opt for stringent EIA, mitigation, and resettlement rather than a blanket stop. However, the question tests whether each reason can justify “stop now,” which they can.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” or “Only II” artificially excludes one strong rationale. “Neither” ignores both substantial concerns.

Common Pitfalls:Treating development–displacement trade-offs as trivial; overlooking geologic variability.

Final Answer:Either Argument I or II is strong.