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

Concept: In 'statement and arguments' reasoning, an argument is STRONG only when it gives a reason that is directly relevant to the decision and rests on a concrete, verifiable fact or a real cause-effect link -- not a vague hope or an unproven assumption about the outcome. An argument that just wishes for a result, without showing how the action produces it, is WEAK.

Application: Argument I says Kashmir 'earns a lot of foreign exchange for India' -- a concrete, checkable economic fact directly relevant to the decision, giving a real reason to retain the territory. Argument II says giving up the territory 'would help settle conflicts' -- this only asserts a hoped-for outcome without showing any mechanism connecting the transfer to actually resolving the dispute, so it stays an unproven assumption.

Cross-check: Testing each argument independently against the same relevance-plus-evidence standard confirms the split: Argument I passes because it names a specific, checkable economic consequence; Argument II fails because it names no mechanism, only a hoped-for result. Since exactly one argument clears the bar, any option that treats them as tied ('either'), dismisses both ('neither'), or credits only the unsubstantiated one ('only II') cannot be right.

Result: Only argument I is strong.