The correct answer is: C. Either I or II is strong.
Argument I is strong because it is based on the fact that India has not yet achieved the target for literacy. This means that there are still many people in India who do not have the basic skills necessary to succeed in higher education. If new universities were established without addressing this issue, it is likely that many of the students who enrolled would not be able to succeed. This would be a waste of resources and would not help to improve the quality of education in India.
Argument II is also strong because it is based on the fact that India already has a large number of unemployed people with high qualifications. If new universities were established without addressing this issue, it is likely that many of the graduates from these universities would also be unemployed. This would be a waste of resources and would not help to improve the economy of India.
However, it is important to note that both arguments are based on assumptions. Argument I assumes that the only way to improve literacy rates in India is to establish new universities. This may not be the case. There may be other ways to improve literacy rates, such as providing more funding for primary and secondary education. Argument II assumes that all of the graduates from new universities in India would be unemployed. This may not be the case. There may be a demand for highly qualified workers in India, even if there is currently a surplus of unemployed people with high qualifications.
Overall, both arguments are strong because they are based on valid concerns. However, it is important to consider the assumptions underlying these arguments before making a decision about whether or not new universities should be established in India.