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

Concept: In a statement-argument question, a 'strong' argument must be directly relevant to the course of action in the statement, factually accurate, and supported by clear reasoning — not a personal opinion, a vague claim, or a claim that misstates a basic fact (such as treating a privilege as a right).

Application:

1. Argument I claims employees have 'the right' to travel free. Free travel passes given to railway employees are a service privilege extended by the employer, not a legal or inherent right — the argument misstates this basic fact, so it does not hold up.

2. Argument II claims that stopping the passes will help railways provide better facilities, but it gives no reasoning or evidence connecting withdrawal of the passes to improved facilities — an unsubstantiated, vague claim does not qualify as strong.

Cross-check: Testing both arguments against the same strength criteria (factual accuracy + clear supporting reasoning) shows both fail — one misstates a fact, the other lacks justification — confirming neither argument clears the bar for 'strong'.

Why the other options fail:

• Only argument I is strong — fails because argument I's own premise (treating the privilege as a right) is factually incorrect.

• Only argument II is strong — fails because argument II gives no reasoning linking the action to the claimed benefit.

• Either I or II is strong — fails because neither argument independently satisfies the strength criteria examined above.

Result: Neither I nor II is strong.