Statement–Argument — Should the government enact stricter laws against the spread of hutment (slum) colonies? Arguments: I) No; the government must provide food, shelter, and clothing to every citizen. II) Yes; unchecked proliferation of hutments strains civic amenities and destabilizes the population–infrastructure balance. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Urban policy must reconcile welfare obligations with orderly development. The question asks whether tougher anti-encroachment laws are justified, considering infrastructure load and humane alternatives.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Hutments often arise from housing shortages near jobs.
• Unplanned settlements complicate sanitation, water, transport, and health.
• Policy tools include in-situ upgradation, affordable housing, rental vouchers, and enforcement against new encroachments.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strong because it identifies a concrete public-interest harm (infrastructure stress) that stricter, smarter regulation can address, ideally coupled with humane relocation or regularization. Argument I cites a general welfare duty but does not engage the specific policy mechanism; providing shelter need not mean tolerating unsafe, unplanned sprawl. The duty can be discharged via planned affordable housing rather than unchecked hutments.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Cities that pair enforcement with affordable-housing supply and transit access achieve better outcomes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Neither” ignore the concrete systems argument in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Framing the debate as enforcement versus compassion; the better frame is enforcement plus humane alternatives.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.