The question below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and
II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Statement: Should the municipal corporation convert the central public park into a multi-level public transport terminal? Arguments:
I. Yes, as the new terminal will drastically cut down urban traffic congestion and generate substantial revenue through commercial advertising that will cover construction costs within three years.
II. No, as replacing the park will destroy the neighborhood's primary green space, severely impacting local environmental quality and residents' physical well-being.

The statement questions whether the municipal corporation should proceed with converting a central public park into a multi-level public transport terminal. Argument I supports the proposal by highlighting two significant economic and infrastructural benefits: the reduction of urban traffic congestion and the generation of steady advertising revenue to recoup construction costs quickly. This is a strong argument because traffic management and economic viability are major, relevant factors in urban planning decisions. Argument II opposes the proposal by highlighting the environmental and social costs: the destruction of local green space and its negative impact on air quality and public health. This is also a strong argument because environmental sustainability and public health are critical, real-world concerns that municipal authorities must evaluate when considering infrastructure projects. Since both arguments provide realistic, impactful, and directly relevant points—one addressing urban infrastructure and fiscal sustainability, and the other addressing environmental quality and community welfare—both arguments are strong. Thus, Option (E) is the correct answer.