Statement–Argument (Energy Subsidy Policy): Statement: Should subsidy on domestic LPG cylinders be stopped? Arguments: I) Yes, subsidy encourages misuse by housewives who over-cook food. II) No, in a welfare-oriented country no subsidy can be stopped. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Subsidy reforms should be argued on targeting accuracy, fiscal burden, externalities (health/clean fuel adoption), and leakage—not stereotypes or absolutes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Attributes “misuse” to housewives and “over-cooking”—an unfounded, biased generalisation lacking policy metrics.
• Argument II: Claims no subsidy can ever be stopped in a welfare state—an absolute assertion ignoring dynamic policy needs.

Concept / Approach:
Neither argument meets strength standards. A strong “Yes” would show better targeting via DBT/income caps or alternative support. A strong “No” would link to health benefits (clean fuel uptake), equity for low-income households, or transitional design. These are absent.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Stereotype plus no evidence; fails relevance/rigour tests.Evaluate II: Absolute claim contradicts routine subsidy rationalisation; lacks cost-benefit reasoning.

Verification / Alternative check:
Targeting and phased rationalisation are common middle paths—neither argument acknowledges such design choices.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing any single argument or “either” would reward weak reasoning; both are inadequate.

Common Pitfalls:
Using stereotypes to infer misuse; treating “welfare” as immunity from reform.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.