Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments…

Concept: In Statement-and-Argument reasoning, an argument is 'strong' only if it is directly relevant to the specific action proposed in the statement and holds up on factual or logical grounds -- not if it is a vague generalization, a moral platitude, or an objection to the system's implementation rather than to the system's underlying purpose. A flaw in how a system is executed (for example, corruption) calls for reform of that execution, not for scrapping the system, so such an objection does not count as a strong reason to abolish it.

Application: Testing each argument against this standard:

• Argument I -- 'Protectionism is over, everyone must get bread on his own' -- is a vague ideological generalization. It says nothing about whether the poor currently depend on the Public Distribution System for survival, so it does not directly address the question being asked.

• Argument II -- 'the poor do not get any benefit because of corruption' -- identifies a real problem, but that problem lies in how the system is being run, not in the system's purpose. The logical response to corruption is to fix the implementation, not to scrap the system.

Cross-check: Since Argument I fails the relevance test and Argument II fails the implementation-vs-purpose test, neither argument independently justifies scrapping the Public Distribution System.

Answer: Neither I nor II is strong -- both arguments fail the strong-argument test on their own terms.