Question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a strong argument and which is a weak argument :
Statement:

Is winning more important than participation?
Arguments:
I. Yes, all sports persons are now professionals who solely depend upon the prize money for their survival.
II. No, cricketers in India earn more from endorsements than from match fee.​​

Is winning more important than participation?
Arguments:
I. Yes, all sports persons are now professionals who solely depend upon the prize money for their survival.

This is a weak argument because it makes an exaggerated claim ("all sports persons") which is factually incorrect.

Many athletes earn from salaries, sponsorships, and other sources besides prize money.

Also, it doesn't directly address whether winning is more important than participation.
II. No, cricketers in India earn more from endorsements than from match fee.​​

This is a weak argument because It talks only about cricketers in India, ignoring other sports and countries
Earning from endorsements is typically tied to a player's success (winning) rather than just participation
It doesn't effectively counter the importance of winning vs participation.

Thus, the correct option is (d) If neither argument I nor II is strong.