Statement: Should adult education programme be given priority over compulsory…

Concept: In a Statement-Argument question, a reason is judged ‘strong’ only if it clears three checks together — it is directly relevant to the question asked, it rests on a practical or factual consideration rather than a vague or far-fetched one, and its own reasoning is logically consistent with (actually supports) the very conclusion, Yes or No, that it states. A reason whose logic points toward the opposite conclusion cannot be strong, however it is phrased.

Application: Testing each argument against this standard —

• Argument I concludes ‘No’ (do not prioritise adult education), yet the reason it gives — that adult education would also help the compulsory education programme succeed — is a reason FOR running the adult education programme, not a reason for withholding priority from it. The reasoning works against its own stated conclusion, so this argument fails the internal-consistency check.

• Argument II concludes ‘Yes’ (prioritise adult education), and its reason — that it would help eliminate adult illiteracy — is directly on-topic, grounded in a practical outcome, and fully consistent with that ‘Yes’ conclusion. This argument clears all three checks.

Cross-check: Re-reading Argument I on its own terms confirms the contradiction stands independent of Argument II — a reason that favours running a programme cannot simultaneously justify denying it priority. Argument II’s link between the programme and reducing illiteracy needs no further support beyond the statement itself to hold.

Result: Exactly one of the two reasons meets the strong-argument test — the one built on eliminating adult illiteracy. That is the classification that matches the analysis above.