Statement: Should the surcharge imposed on companies in India be waived? Arguments: I. Yes. The surcharge in India is higher than in countries such as the USA and Japan. II. Yes. The amount earned through the surcharge is very small. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Tax-surcharge policy requires evidence-based justification. Strong arguments must demonstrate why comparison or revenue magnitude logically compels a waiver, considering fiscal needs and policy objectives (equity, competitiveness).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No quantitative data on Indian surcharge rates vs. peers.
• No demonstration that revenue is negligible relative to costs/benefits.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I cites international comparison but does not explain structural differences (tax bases, deductions, compliance, public goods funding). Mere cross-country variance does not, by itself, justify a waiver—weak. Argument II labels revenue “very less” without a benchmark (share of total revenue, marginal efficiency cost), so it lacks force—weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• Evaluate I: Without context (effective rates, incidence, elasticity), the comparison is superficial ⇒ weak.• Evaluate II: “Very less” is conclusory; the absolute/relative magnitude and policy trade-offs are unspecified ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Either argument could be strong with data (e.g., demonstrably uncompetitive effective rates or de minimis revenue with high distortion). Lacking that, neither compels policy change.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options asserting strength overlook the evidentiary gap in I and II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming international parity or small sums automatically determine tax design.

Final Answer:
Neither argument I nor II is strong.