Statement: Should there be a total ban on tobacco products and smoking in India? Arguments: I. Yes. It is wrong to “smoke away” millions of rupees. II. No. Thousands of workers in the tobacco industry will be out of employment. III. No. The government will lose substantial tax revenue. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Public health aims often require strong regulation; a total ban has complex economic side-effects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Tobacco harms health; regulation exists (warnings, taxes, place-of-use bans).
• Industry employment and fiscal revenues are material in the short run.

Concept / Approach:
Assess strength of arguments relative to a “total ban.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: “Wrong to smoke away money” is moralizing and not a policy mechanism. Weak.II: Job loss is a concrete, immediate consequence of a total ban and relevant to policy design (phasing, reskilling). Strong.III: Large tax revenue loss is a fiscal concern; sudden bans impact budgets and illicit markets. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions escalate taxes and restrictions rather than total bans to balance health and economic transitions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I is weak; “None” ignores II/III; “II is strong” omits III; “All” overstates I.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring transition planning; treating moral disapproval as sufficient policy ground.

Final Answer:
II and III are strong