The entire argument is illogical and fallacious.
It would be nonsensical to use a carrier to defend the Falklands, that is better done using MPA - which is why it was built. You can't maintain a carrier force down there for any length of time and sending one takes to long, it is much easier to reinforce MPA at short notice if an emergency arises.
The second scenario is what action can be taken if the Falklands are invaded again and held by the Argentine armed forces. In this situation they will hold MPA and can, unlike in the last war, reinforce with both AD and attack aircraft. They will therefore be operating from a home base rather than at the limits of their range.
Against this, assuming we were capable of assembling a fleet, we would be able to provide a carrier borne force of around 12 GR7/9 non-radar equipped ground attack aircraft, with the fleet having to operate at range from the islands for their own protection - and hence outside any friendly radar cover. Frankly, they'd be blown out of the sky.
This isn't the 1980s, there are no SHARs, and the enemy would be in a far better position.