Read the statement and the two arguments that follow and decide which argument(s) is/are strong. Statement: Should there be strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes? Arguments: I. Yes, strict laws will naturally help maintain water levels for future generations and will also positively affect the migration of birds. II. No, such laws come in the way of modern urban development and growth.

Introduction / Context:
This question deals with environmental conservation versus urban development. The statement suggests strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes. One argument favours conservation for future water security and bird migration, while the other opposes these laws for the sake of urban growth. We must decide which argument is strong based on long-term public interest and logical reasoning.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should there be strict laws for maintaining ponds and lakes?
Argument I: Yes, they help maintain water levels for generations and support bird migration.
Argument II: No, such laws hinder modern urban development and growth.
Assume water bodies are important for ecological balance, water storage and biodiversity, and urban development also requires land and infrastructure.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should:

Focus on significant, long-term effects.
Be realistic and consistent with well-known environmental or social facts.
Not base itself purely on short-term or vague benefits at the expense of critical resources.

In exam logic, protecting essential natural resources like water bodies usually counts as a strong policy reason, especially when the opposing argument is vague or one-sided.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It states that strict laws will help maintain water levels for future generations and affect bird migration positively. Ponds and lakes act as natural storage for rainwater, recharge groundwater and provide habitats for many species. If they are neglected or encroached upon, cities may face water shortages, urban flooding and loss of biodiversity. Therefore, Argument I brings out crucial long-term environmental and ecological benefits, making it a strong argument in favour of strict laws. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that environmental laws hinder modern urban development and growth. While development does require land, growth must be planned; unregulated destruction of water bodies can cause serious long-term damage, including water crises and flooding, which ultimately also harm development. The argument does not show how strict but well-designed laws cannot co-exist with planned urban development. Thus, it is one-sided and ignores sustainable development concepts, making it a weak argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Urban planning in many successful cities now includes conservation of lakes and ponds precisely because they support resilience against climate extremes. Laws protecting these resources are considered good planning, not a barrier to growth. Therefore, the long-term, sustainability-based reasoning in Argument I clearly outweighs the short-term view in Argument II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument II is strong overlooks the environmental and water-security crisis many cities face when water bodies are destroyed.
Claiming that both arguments are strong would equate a sustainability-based argument with an unbalanced desire for unrestricted development.
Saying neither is strong ignores the clear and important points in Argument I about future generations and ecosystems.
The “either I or II” option is meant for cases where both arguments are individually strong but contradictory, which does not apply here.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates may be impressed by the word “modern” and assume development should override environmental concerns. In real reasoning, modern development increasingly means sustainable development. Ignoring the importance of water bodies is a serious flaw in an argument, so Argument II cannot be treated as strong.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong. Hence, the correct option is Only argument I is strong.