Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

The only argument first is right because educated people just want to start and they can manage themselves if they provide a little help and they would not sit idle because they are educated and educated people know their responsibility towards their families.

I think since it was mentioned that youth are EDUCATED (here we assume that they have graduated college, university), they by definition cannot promote idleness. If we omit word EDUCATED, both statements can be correct.

When do we use Both and when do we use either? I used to think that when the arguments are opposite in nature, like one is yes and the other is no and both the arguments are correct we use either 1 & 2 is strong, and when the arguments are similar in nature we use both 1 and 2 follows. As in this case I thought the answer should be either 1 and 2 follows because the arguments are opposite in nature. Please someone explain me.

I think C must be answer as both !&@ cannot follow together.

Why should government should feed them? is there any necessity for them to do like obiviously no. Till their post graduation government is feeding them with a free education, inspite of doing all this, even now govt should feed them. It is very ridiculous.

I think the definition of a 'strong argument' needs to be defined a bit more, otherwise it's too subjective. The amount of money being offered in the allowance, for instance, could drastically alter the strength of either argument.

Well I is logical and strong on various basis but statement 2 may not be strong because all those pension scheme exist today are based on the premise that who need monetary support due to lack of employment must be given minimum monetary support to sustain their lives. As constitution guarantees for life.

But such amounts are not enough to live a comfortable life so question of being complacent to do anything further stands irrelevant and giving monetary support in forms of unemployment allowance is justifiable and statement stands strong while Statement 2 though right but not strong.

I would say point I is invalid, as If government give them unemployment allowance (means granting little money on monthly/yearly basis to unemployed people for living their daily life) , but if he use that money to seek employment or to kick-start some 'self-employment', he will need a little bit more money/investment which would not be possible with the allowance, also he/she won't be eligible for the unemployment allowance as soon as he kick-start something or get self-employed. So I feel point I is ill logical.

I agree with @Clive, the "correct" answer to this question is very subjective. I believe neither is strong enough- why give them money as an incentive? They would clearly take advantage of it. It would be better to offer actual job opportunities rather than give away money for (practically) free.

So, for me, neither I or II are strong. This question shouldn't really be here, or it should have multiple correct answers, though that's impossible sadly.

Why do we assume all unemployed graduates (especially youth) are poor and need financial assistance? Unemployment benefits should be need based. Most 'youth' still live at home. Giving them money will just prolong this.