Statement–Argument — Should there be a censor board to supervise advertisements issued by companies? Arguments: I) No; it is impractical to create separate censoring bodies for many different domains. II) Yes; several advertisements have shown content that provokes public controversy and can harm social norms and vulnerable groups. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Advertising can shape attitudes, especially among children and teens. Democracies typically balance commercial free speech with protections against deceptive, harmful, or socially corrosive content. The question weighs feasibility (Argument I) against demonstrated social harms (Argument II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Advertisements reach mass audiences repeatedly and can normalize risky or objectionable behavior.
• Regulation could be a dedicated board or strengthened self-regulation with state oversight.
• Past controversies indicate gaps in current screening or post-factum enforcement.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should speak directly to public interest and policy effectiveness. Argument II highlights real, observable harms and justifies supervisory mechanisms (prior vetting or robust codes with penalties). Argument I merely asserts “impracticality” without showing why proportional systems (e.g., one national body, co-regulation, or tiered review for sensitive categories) cannot work.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ignores substantive harms; “Either/Neither” misclassify the asymmetry in argument quality.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming supervision equals censorship of all content; calibrated frameworks can target only risky categories.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.