Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed…

In Statement-and-Argument reasoning, an argument is strong when it is directly relevant to the statement and grounded in a real, practical consequence rather than speculation or exaggeration. When two strong arguments support the SAME course of action, the verdict is that both are strong; but when they take OPPOSING stances on the same statement (one favours the action, the other opposes it) and each is independently strong, the standard verdict is that either argument, taken on its own, is strong -- not both together, since a 'both' verdict is reserved for non-conflicting arguments.

Argument I supports the action: it says yes, because opening industries creates jobs -- a real, direct economic benefit. Argument II opposes the action: it says no, because it will increase pollution -- an equally real, direct, and significant environmental cost. The two arguments are direct, practical, and significant, and they pull in opposite directions on the same statement. Because they oppose each other and both are independently strong, the correct verdict here is that either argument, taken on its own, is strong.

If job creation were unrealistic or economically distant, Argument I would be weak, pointing toward only Argument II. If the pollution claim were a vague fear rather than a documented effect of industrial expansion, Argument II would be weak, pointing toward only Argument I. Since both hold up as genuine, direct, significant considerations that oppose each other, ruling out both is also wrong and calling both strong together does not fit an opposing pair -- leaving 'either I or II is strong' as the answer.