Statement: Should luxury hotels be banned in India? Arguments: I. Yes, these are places from where international criminal operate. II. No, affluent foreign tourist will have no place to stay. Select the correct answer from the codes given below:

The correct answer is C: only Argument II is strong.

Argument II is strong. A blanket ban would remove accommodation that affluent foreign tourists expect and pay for. Luxury hotels are a major source of foreign exchange and tourism-linked jobs, so the consequence is direct and relevant to the decision.

Argument I is weak. That some criminals use certain hotels is a case for tighter regulation, not prohibition. Guest registration, police verification of foreign nationals and CCTV requirements already address this. Crime also occurs in budget lodgings, so singling out luxury hotels is an unfair generalisation, and it does not justify banning an entire category.

Core concept: In argument-evaluation questions, check whether a point addresses the actual issue, and whether the proposed remedy is proportionate to the problem. Regulation is usually the proportionate response to misuse; prohibition is not.

Mains connection: This links to GS-II and GS-III on regulation versus prohibition in the tourism and hospitality sector, and to the balance between internal security and economic activity.

Trap: Aspirants often pick D because the criminal angle sounds alarming, or B because both points look plausible. Always test whether the argument justifies a ban specifically, not just a concern.