Statement: Should the government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports events? Arguments: I. Yes. This money can instead be utilised for the welfare of the poor. II. No. If such spending is stopped, sportspersons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure.

Introduction / Context:
This is a statement-and-argument question that asks you to analyse whether the government should stop spending large amounts of money on international sports events. Two arguments are given, one favouring and the other opposing the statement. Your task is to identify which argument is strong, meaning that it is relevant, logical and significant enough to influence policy decisions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should the government stop spending huge amounts of money on international sports?
Argument I: Yes. This money can be used for the welfare of the poor.
Argument II: No. Sportspersons will be frustrated and will not get international exposure if the spending stops.
We assume sports funding currently supports participation in international events and that the country also has social welfare needs.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must be directly related to the statement, realistic, and focused on major consequences. Simply claiming that money could help the poor does not automatically justify cutting any particular spending unless a clear, specific link is shown. On the other hand, if an argument explains how the core purpose of that spending would be harmed, it is generally stronger.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Examine Argument I: It says that money diverted from international sports could be used for the poor. Helping the poor is certainly an important objective, but this argument is vague and generic. The same reasoning could be used to stop spending on many other essential areas such as health, education or infrastructure. It does not analyse the specific role of sports spending or balanced budgeting; therefore it is considered weak in this exam setting. Examine Argument II: It focuses on the direct consequence for sportspersons and the sports sector. International spending gives athletes exposure, competition experience and opportunities to raise a country’s profile. If funding is entirely stopped, the international performance and motivation of sportspersons will suffer, which is a serious and specific consequence. Hence Argument II is realistic, directly linked to the statement, and is treated as a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public expenditure decisions normally balance many sectors: welfare, education, defence, sports and others. Argument I uses a broad slogan (“give money to the poor”) without explaining why sports should be singled out. Argument II, however, explains a core impact of cutting this particular spending. Therefore, only Argument II meets the criteria for strength.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Both arguments cannot be equally strong because Argument I is too general and could apply to nearly any spending. Saying neither is strong ignores the clear, concrete consequence mentioned in Argument II. Claiming that the strength cannot be evaluated is incorrect; the information given is enough to judge them.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often treat any mention of the poor as automatically strong. In reasoning questions, you must look for specific, policy-focused logic, not just emotionally appealing statements. Here, the targeted, practical concern for sports development in Argument II makes it stronger than the broad claim in Argument I.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong. Therefore the correct choice is Only argument II is strong.