Let's analyze the given statement and the two arguments presented regarding the subsidization of school education.

Analyzing the Statement and Arguments

The statement asks whether school education should be subsidized for everyone. This is a policy question with potential social and economic implications.

We need to evaluate the strength of each argument.

Argument I Analysis: Benefits to the Population

Argument I states: "Yes, it will help a large number of people since a major fraction of our population is middle class or below."

• This argument supports subsidizing education.
• It provides a reason based on the positive impact on a significant portion of the population (middle class and below).
• Subsidized education directly reduces the financial burden on these families, potentially increasing access to education or freeing up money for other necessities.
• Helping a large number of people, especially those in lower income brackets, is often a primary goal of government social spending and is considered a strong justification for a policy.
• Therefore, this argument presents a significant positive consequence of subsidization.

Based on this analysis, Argument I appears to be a strong argument supporting the subsidization of school education by highlighting its direct benefit to a large segment of society.

Argument II Analysis: Financial Burden

Argument II states: "No, it is a huge burden for cash-strapped exchequer."

• This argument opposes subsidizing education.
• It provides a reason based on the potential financial difficulty for the government ("cash-strapped exchequer").
• Implementing widespread subsidies would indeed require significant government expenditure.
• However, this argument primarily points to a practical challenge or constraint in implementing the policy, rather than a fundamental reason why the policy itself is undesirable in principle or lacks merit.
• While financial feasibility is a critical consideration for any policy, stating that it is a "huge burden" for a "cash-strapped exchequer" highlights an implementation difficulty.

While the financial aspect is relevant, Argument II focuses on the cost/difficulty of implementation rather than a direct negative consequence or lack of benefit from the policy itself. In the context of evaluating the strength of an argument for or against a policy's principle or core benefit, Argument I, which highlights a significant positive social impact, is generally considered stronger than an argument merely pointing out the difficulty of funding.

Conclusion

Argument I provides a strong reason for subsidizing education by focusing on the direct positive impact on a large number of people, aligning with social welfare goals. Argument II raises a valid concern about funding but frames it as a burden on the government's finances, which is more about the challenge of implementation than a fundamental flaw in the policy's objective or benefits.

Therefore, Argument I is considered strong.