Question 1

Statement–Argument (FDI Policy): Statement: Should MNCs be allowed to start 100%-owned subsidiaries in India? Arguments: I) Yes, neighbouring countries have permitted it. II) No, India’s entrepreneurial ecosystem needs protection. Choose the option …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Policy on 100% FDI must weigh competition, technology transfer, market access, local capability building, and strategic autonomy. A strong argument references these effects, not mere imitation of neighbours. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Appeals to what neighbours do—irrelevant unless tied to outcomes for India. Argument II: Cites protection for domestic entrepreneurship—relevant to market structure, MSME survival, and innovation incentives. Concept / Approach: Argument strength turns on policy consequences. I is weak as an appeal to authority/tradition elsewhere. II addresses domestic development and competitive balance, thus policy-relevant. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: Lacks causal link between neighbours’ choices and India’s welfare.Evaluate II: Points to safeguarding local enterprise capacity—directly germane to FDI policy. Verification / Alternative check: A strong “Yes” would cite consumer surplus, investment spillovers, and safeguards; here, only II meets strength criteria. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking I or “either/neither” misreads that only II gives a substantive policy ground. Common Pitfalls: Copying policies without context; ignoring domestic capability effects. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 2

Statement–Argument (Mobiles on Campus): Statement: Should students be banned from carrying mobile phones on college campuses? Arguments: I) No, a mobile phone is essential and one needs it all day. II) Yes, mobile phones distract students from studi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Campus device policy is about learning outcomes, disruption, and safety. Strong arguments should tie the rule to academic focus or workable alternatives (time/place restrictions) rather than vague generalities. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Asserts “essential all day,” but does not address classroom impacts or consider moderated policies. Argument II: Directly links phones to distraction—notifications, social media, and split attention—affecting learning. Concept / Approach: Relevance to the institution’s core objective (learning) makes II strong. I is generic; essentiality outside class can be accommodated by regulated use without undermining the academic environment. Step-by-Step Solution: Map the proposal to effects: Distraction harms learning productivity; II addresses this.I lacks specificity; “essential all day” ignores targeted restrictions (e.g., allowed outside classrooms). Verification / Alternative check: Common practice is not blanket bans but structured restrictions—this still validates II’s core reasoning that unmanaged use distracts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II makes a direct academic case; I is not strong; “either/neither” misclassifies. Common Pitfalls: False dilemma: assuming only total ban or total freedom. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 3

Statement–Argument (Election Synchronisation): Statement: Should Parliamentary and State Assembly elections be clubbed together (held simultaneously)? Arguments: I) Yes, it will reduce the overall cost of conducting elections. II) No, because many v…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Simultaneous elections are evaluated on cost, logistics, governance continuity, and voter comprehension. Strong arguments must link to tangible effects, not stereotypes about voter capacity. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Claims cost reduction—fewer deployments, shared logistics, single preparation cycle. Argument II: Says illiterate voters cannot handle two ballots, hence democracy is jeopardised. Concept / Approach: Argument I is relevant and plausible—cost is a standard policy metric. Argument II is weak: literacy does not preclude casting two ballots; ballots/symbols and assistance protocols already support voter comprehension. It also asserts a dire outcome without mechanism. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: Direct cost nexus—valid and pragmatic.Evaluate II: Overgeneralises voter limits and ignores mitigations; not a strong ground. Verification / Alternative check: Even critics of synchronisation usually cite federalism and campaign timing, not voter literacy; II misses the core concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Either/neither” misreads: only I has a concrete policy linkage here. Common Pitfalls: Assuming literacy equals voting competence; ignoring ballot design aids. Final Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Question 4

Statement–Argument (Censorship & Art): Statement: Should films based on ghosts (supernatural/horror) be banned? Arguments: I) No, filmmaking is an art form and creative freedom should be preserved. II) Yes, such films increase superstition. Choose t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Censorship questions weigh harm prevention against freedom of expression. A strong argument here must show concrete harm that cannot be mitigated by ratings/disclaimers—or defend artistic liberty. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Protects creative freedom—directly relevant to the ban proposal. Argument II: Claims superstition rises but provides no necessity or proportionality analysis for a ban. Concept / Approach: Freedom of expression is a recognised policy value; restrictions require specific, demonstrable harms and proportional remedies. Mere correlation with “superstition” is too vague to justify prohibition, especially with less-restrictive alternatives (certification, advisories). Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: It aligns with default liberty assumptions in cultural production—strong.Assess II: Lacks evidence, scope, and consideration of milder tools—weak. Verification / Alternative check: Where films risk copycat harm or incitement, tailored restrictions may apply; superstition per se does not meet that threshold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I stands as a strong, principle-based reason; “either/neither” misclassifies. Common Pitfalls: Treating discomfort with genre as grounds for bans. Final Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Question 5

Statement–Argument (Rail Ticketing on Trains): Statement: Railways should introduce bus-like conductors to sell tickets on running trains. Arguments: I) Yes, it would significantly reduce ticketless travel. II) No, it complicates procedures and rais…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Operational reforms must weigh compliance benefits against cost/complexity. This is classic cost-benefit reasoning; both sides can be strong if they speak to measurable outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Links on-board conductors to higher compliance and reduced fare evasion. Argument II: Warns of staffing costs, supervision, and workflow complexity relative to TTE/ETM models. Concept / Approach: A strong “Yes” cites enforcement and revenue protection; a strong “No” cites costs and process burden. Both are relevant and decision-oriented. Step-by-Step Solution: I addresses the benefit side—less evasion ⇒ more revenue.II addresses the cost/feasibility side—additional payroll/logistics ⇒ higher OPEX.Because each independently targets a key decision dimension, either can be strong depending on context. Verification / Alternative check: Pilots with handheld ETMs and targeted checks are common middle paths; the presence of viable alternatives reinforces that both concerns are substantive. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one ignores the other's material relevance; “neither” denies obvious trade-offs. Common Pitfalls: Framing choices as all-or-nothing; ignoring hybrid models (selective conductors, random checks). Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 6

Statement–Argument (Mergers & Precedent): Statement: Should Company X be allowed to merge with Company Y? Arguments: I) Yes, the Hindustan Lever–Lipton merger was a success. II) No, mergers can damage morale in the company that becomes subordinate (…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: M&A evaluation is fact-specific (synergies, antitrust, culture fit). Citing a past success elsewhere is a weak generalisation. Employee morale and integration risks are central to post-merger performance, making that line of reasoning stronger. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Uses an external precedent without linking similarities (markets, assets, culture). Argument II: Points to a common merger risk—morale loss in the acquired/subordinate entity—affecting productivity and retention. Concept / Approach: Strength requires decision-relevant analysis. Unqualified precedent (I) is weak; integration risk (II) is substantial and outcome-relevant. Step-by-Step Solution: Test I: Does external success predict this case? Not without comparability—weak.Test II: Identifies a typical failure mode with operational consequences—strong. Verification / Alternative check: Many mergers fail due to cultural misfit and morale issues; highlighting this is materially relevant. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Either” overrates I; “neither” underrates II. Common Pitfalls: Assuming one success story is a universal template. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 7

Statement–Argument (Media & Social Harmony): Statement: Should communal violence be shown on television? Arguments: I) Yes, confronting the “devil within” helps society exorcise it. II) No, telecast of such content can inflame tensions in real life.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Broadcast policy must weigh public interest against risk of incitement. A strong argument identifies concrete social impacts and necessity standards for restrictions. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Offers a philosophical thesis (catharsis) with no operational guardrails. Argument II: Points to real-world risk of escalation, imitation, and communal polarisation due to live/graphic coverage. Concept / Approach: In content policy, harm prevention is a recognised basis for limits (with proportional safeguards). Argument II is specific about risk; Argument I is abstract and does not show that broadcast is necessary for reform. Step-by-Step Solution: Test I: Lacks mechanism and ignores alternative educational formats.Test II: Identifies foreseeable harm; aligns with time-place-manner restrictions. Verification / Alternative check: Delayed, contextualised reporting or de-sensitised coverage can inform without inflaming—supporting II’s caution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Either/neither” misclassifies relative strength; II is the robust policy argument. Common Pitfalls: Assuming visibility alone heals division; ignoring copycat/retaliation dynamics. Final Answer: if only argument II is strong.

Question 8

Statement–Argument (Campus Politics): Statement: Should political activity on campus be restrained? Arguments: I) Yes, excessive politics vitiates the academic atmosphere. II) No, restraint impinges on students’ freedom. Choose the option indicating…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Universities must balance free expression/association with an academic mission. Both sides can present strong, principle-grounded arguments: educational focus versus civil liberties. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Asserts that high political intensity disrupts learning—discipline, classes, and safety. Argument II: Warns that restraining politics curtails students’ rights to speech/association. Concept / Approach: Both arguments map to recognised institutional values. I is strong where disruption is material; II is strong where freedoms are core and can coexist with study through reasonable time-place-manner rules. Step-by-Step Solution: I focuses on academic outcomes and campus order—relevant and concrete.II focuses on rights and democratic learning—also relevant and concrete.Since each stands on an independent principle, either can be strong depending on context. Verification / Alternative check: Most campuses adopt calibrated rules (venue/time limits) to reconcile both objectives, evidencing dual legitimacy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one side ignores the legitimate counter-principle; “neither” denies obvious stakes. Common Pitfalls: All-or-nothing framing; overlooking moderate regulation that respects speech and study. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 9

Statement–Argument (Compulsory Voting): Statement: Should voting be compulsory for all adults? Arguments: I) Yes, outcomes would be more representative if everyone votes. II) No, compulsion removes the citizen’s right to abstain. Choose the option i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Compulsory voting trades off representativeness against negative liberty (the right not to choose). Both sides can advance strong normative and practical points. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I: Universal turnout reduces sampling bias from differential participation, plausibly improving representativeness. Argument II: Coercion undermines freedom to abstain as political expression (e.g., principled non-choice). Concept / Approach: Both arguments are policy-relevant and principle-grounded: I on outcome quality, II on liberty. Thus both are strong. Step-by-Step Solution: I: More voters ⇒ closer to full electorate’s preferences.II: Liberty includes abstention; coercion raises rights and enforcement issues. Verification / Alternative check: Some systems balance by encouraging turnout via nudges rather than compulsion—showing both principles matter. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only one side is not uniquely strong; “neither” ignores valid considerations on both sides. Common Pitfalls: Equating abstention with apathy; ignoring that non-participation can be expressive. Final Answer: if either I or II is strong.

Question 10

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 stoppe…

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 11

Statement & Argument — Should roadside hoardings be banned?  Arguments: I. Yes, they distract drivers and disturb traffic flow. II. No, banning them would result in loss of advertising revenue.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Statement–Argument questions test whether an argument is relevant, specific, and logically strong in relation to the given statement. The statement asks if roadside hoardings should be banned. We must judge each argument on merit, not on personal opinion. Given Data / Assumptions: Public roads are high-risk environments where safety and smooth traffic flow are primary objectives. Hoardings can introduce visual clutter and distraction to drivers and pedestrians. Advertising revenue, while useful, is not the primary criterion for road design and safety policy. Concept / Approach: In this topic, a strong argument is one that is directly connected to the decision criteria that authorities should use. For road policies, core criteria include safety, congestion reduction, and public welfare. Revenue is a secondary consideration unless tied to public interest in a compelling way. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate Argument I: It claims hoardings disturb traffic. This is specific, relevant to safety, and aligns with core policy criteria. Hence, it is strong.2) Evaluate Argument II: It appeals to revenue loss. This is tangential and does not address safety or welfare. As framed, it is weak. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose authorities run a safety-first policy. Argument I clearly supports such policy. Argument II would be persuasive only if it showed that revenue funds safety measures directly; the argument does not do so. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II alone is weak. Both strong or either strong is incorrect because II lacks core relevance. Common Pitfalls: Overvaluing revenue without tying it to safety or public benefit. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Question 12

Statement & Argument — Should Party X be voted to power?  Arguments: I. Yes, it is the only party capable of bringing stability. II. No, it cannot rule the country properly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Political judgment questions require arguments that are objective, specific, and evidence oriented. The statement asks whether Party X should be voted to power. We test each argument for specificity, exclusivity claims, and logical sufficiency. Given Data / Assumptions: No data about stability metrics or comparison with other parties is provided. No operational definition of ruling properly is provided. Vague or sweeping assertions without substantiation are typically weak. Concept / Approach: A strong argument should present a concrete, policy-linked reason. An exclusivity claim like “only party” demands strong evidence or a unique capability. A negative claim like “cannot rule properly” must specify reasons (competence, track record, policy failures) to be persuasive. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I claims uniqueness in delivering stability but provides no basis or indicator. Without comparative evidence or defined stability metrics, it is an assertion, hence weak.2) Argument II asserts incapacity without any reference to parameters, examples, or evidence. As phrased, it is also weak. Verification / Alternative check: If I cited verifiable stability outcomes uniquely attributable to Party X, it might become strong. If II listed demonstrated failures or risks, it could be strong. As given, both lack substance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Neither argument independently meets the bar for strength; hence options asserting one or either is strong are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Accepting broad political slogans as strong arguments without evidence. Final Answer: Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 13

Statement & Argument — Should newspaper articles be written in simple language?  Arguments: I. Yes, newspapers target the general reader. II. No, newspapers will lose respect if language is simplified.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We evaluate language policy in news writing. A strong argument will refer to audience comprehension, accessibility, and the communicative purpose of journalism. Given Data / Assumptions: Newspapers address a mass audience with varied education levels. Clarity, accuracy, and accessibility are core journalism values. Respect for a publication is typically driven by credibility and quality, not complexity for its own sake. Concept / Approach: An argument is strong if it ties directly to the mission of newspapers: to inform the public effectively. Simplicity aids comprehension without necessarily reducing rigor or depth. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I: Aligns with audience-centric communication. It is specific and relevant, hence strong.2) Argument II: Predicts loss of respect due to simple language without evidence. Respect correlates better with accuracy, fairness, and depth than with unnecessary verbosity. Hence, II is weak as stated. Verification / Alternative check: High-quality outlets often pair clear prose with deep reporting. Simplicity can coexist with sophistication. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II alone is weak; both strong or either strong is not correct since II lacks a solid basis. Common Pitfalls: Equating complexity of language with intellectual merit. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Question 14

Statement & Argument — Should the public cooperate with bomb disposal squads?  Arguments: I. Yes, cooperation is necessary to rescue lives and ensure safety. II. No, their activities are a nuisance to daily life.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Emergency response scenarios prioritize life and safety. We must judge arguments by their relevance to that priority and proportionality of concerns. Given Data / Assumptions: Bomb disposal operations address immediate, significant threats to life and property. Public cooperation can enable quick cordons, evacuations, and information flow. Temporary inconvenience is secondary when compared with risk mitigation. Concept / Approach: A strong argument supports the primary policy objective. In emergencies, saving lives and preventing harm are paramount. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I is specific, safety linked, and proportionate. Strong.2) Argument II cites inconvenience, which is minor relative to life safety. As framed, it is weak. Verification / Alternative check: Standard emergency doctrines emphasize public cooperation for rapid neutralization of threats. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II does not override safety rationale; thus only I holds. Common Pitfalls: Overstating inconvenience in emergency contexts. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Question 15

Statement & Argument — Should there be repolling where booth-capturing occurred?  Arguments: I. Yes, repolling restores electoral fairness when the process is compromised. II. No, it is a wastage of resources.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Booth-capturing invalidates free and fair elections. The core policy goal is electoral integrity, not cost minimization. Given Data / Assumptions: Booth-capturing distorts voter will and violates law. Repolling can restore a valid mandate in affected booths. Election budgets exist to uphold legitimacy. Concept / Approach: A strong argument references the primary objective of the system. Elections exist to capture the electorate’s true preference; fairness is non-negotiable. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I ties directly to legitimacy and due process. It is relevant, specific, and strong.2) Argument II cites cost. While costs matter, they cannot justify accepting a tainted result; thus II is weak. Verification / Alternative check: Even if repolling imposes expenses, the cost of illegitimate outcomes is higher for democracy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II does not address the foundational requirement of fair elections. Common Pitfalls: Equating operational frugality with legitimacy preservation. Final Answer: Only Argument I is strong.

Question 16

Statement & Argument — Should computer knowledge be essential for office employment?  Arguments: I. Yes, computers are state-of-the-art devices. II. No, office work is not yet fully computerized.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hiring prerequisites should be justified by job requirements, not by generic technology admiration or lagging adoption claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Different office roles require different levels of digital literacy. Argument strength depends on role-specific necessity or policy rationale. Neither argument mentions role fit or transitional training. Concept / Approach: A strong argument would say: for roles that routinely use computers, essential knowledge improves productivity and accuracy; for others, essential may be excessive. As framed, I and II are generic and not policy-sound. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I: Calling computers state of the art does not prove necessity for every office job. Weak.2) Argument II: Incomplete adoption is not a reason to avoid capability building, nor does it address role needs. Weak. Verification / Alternative check: If the arguments were role-tied (for example, data entry, accounting), I could become strong. If II argued for phased training rather than exclusion, it might gain strength. As given, both are weak. Final Answer: Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Question 17

Statement & Argument — Should the Ministry of Defence raise the monthly liquor quota?  Arguments: I. Yes, troops will do anything if promised liquor and leave. II. No, excessive alcohol consumption causes medical harm and dependency.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Policy toward service personnel must balance morale with health and operational readiness. Arguments using stereotypes or exaggeration are weak. Given Data / Assumptions: Excess alcohol has well-documented health and performance risks. Operational forces require fitness, judgment, and discipline. Motivation factors are multifaceted; reducing them to liquor and leave is reductive. Concept / Approach: Arguments are strong when they reference credible outcomes that the policy should prioritize (health, readiness). They are weak when based on sweeping generalizations. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Argument I: Overgeneralized and disrespectful in tone; not tied to evidence. Weak.2) Argument II: Cites medical and dependency risks relevant to forces. Strong. Verification / Alternative check: Policies often restrict or monitor alcohol to protect health and readiness; this aligns with II. Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong.

Question 18

Statement & Argument — Should the Government bring a strict anti-terror law (e.g., POTO-type)?  Arguments: I. No, such laws endanger constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards. II. Yes, terrorism is a major threat and exist…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Security legislation involves a tradeoff between effective prevention and civil liberties. Both pro and anti views can be strong if they are principled, relevant, and policy-grounded. Given Data / Assumptions: Anti-terror frameworks can expand state powers and impact rights. Escalating threats may reveal gaps in existing law enforcement tools. Strength of an argument depends on relevance to core policy aims: protect life and liberty. Concept / Approach: Argument I focuses on rights safeguards; if well grounded, it is strong. Argument II focuses on security necessity due to insufficiency of existing laws; it is also strong. Because they support opposite decisions yet both are cogent, the correct test option is that either argument is strong. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I is strong for highlighting rule of law and rights standards.2) II is strong for highlighting insufficiency against a major threat. Verification / Alternative check: Many exam keys accept the “either” choice when both sides give independent, substantial grounds. Final Answer: Either Argument I or II is strong.

Question 19

Statement & Argument — Should rent fixation be left entirely to landlords and tenants?  Arguments: I. Yes, it is the sole right of landlords and any intervention violates Article 21. II. No, a free hand can lead to exploitation and miseries of tenan…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rent control debates weigh contractual freedom against asymmetric power and housing as a basic need. Strong arguments rely on correct constitutional references and realistic market behavior. Given Data / Assumptions: Article 21 protects life and personal liberty; it does not grant a landlord unilateral rent rights. Housing markets may feature bargaining imbalances and can enable exploitation without safeguards. Public policy often balances freedom of contract with anti-exploitation measures. Concept / Approach: Argument I misstates constitutional law and asserts absolute rights, making it weak. Argument II identifies a plausible risk (rent gouging, coercive clauses) that policy may need to address; thus it is strong. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Check legal accuracy: I is flawed in Article 21 usage and overbroad.2) Market reality: II highlights tenant vulnerability, providing a sound policy reason for regulation. Final Answer: Only Argument II is strong.

Question 20

Statement & Argument — Should India adopt two time zones?  Arguments: I. Yes, many developed countries use multiple time zones. II. No, large countries like China use a single time zone.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Time zone policy should be assessed on domestic criteria such as longitudinal spread, energy use, safety, transport scheduling, and administrative practicality. Mere analogies to other countries are insufficient. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument I cites practice elsewhere without connecting to India’s specific needs. Argument II cites China’s single zone, again without policy linkage to India’s context. Strong arguments should refer to measurable domestic outcomes (for example, daylight alignment, accident rates, productivity). Concept / Approach: Appeals to authority or analogy are weak if they do not translate into local benefits or costs. Both arguments lack India-specific reasoning. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate I: Merely says others do it; no India-focused rationale. Weak.2) Evaluate II: Merely says China does not; still not India-centric. Weak. Verification / Alternative check: Had either argument referenced sunrise misalignment in the northeast, school or rail timings, or grid load effects, it could be strong. As given, both are weak. Final Answer: Neither Argument I nor II is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions