Statement: Should an organisation like the United Nations (UN) be abolished? Arguments: I. Yes. The Cold War is over; such bodies have no role now. II. No. Without them the world will plunge into another world war. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Global institutions address peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, development goals, and treaty coordination. A strong argument should engage with these functions, not rely on simplistic historic references or hyperbolic predictions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Geopolitical tensions persist beyond the Cold War era.
• Causality between the UN’s existence and the absence/presence of world wars is complex.

Concept / Approach:Evaluate whether the arguments are logically connected and sufficiently reasoned.

Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: Ending of the Cold War does not erase other conflicts, climate coordination, pandemics, or refugee crises. Claiming “no role” is false and ignores UN's broader mandate.Argument II: Predicting a world war without the UN is alarmist and does not establish inevitability or direct causation. The argument overstates certainty.

Verification / Alternative check:Strong “reform” arguments might exist (veto reform, transparency), but abolition requires far stronger reasoning than provided.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/II” mistakes weak premises for evidence. “Either/Both” are inapplicable: I is myopic; II is speculative.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing “needs reform” with “abolish.”

Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong.