Statement–Argument (Candidates with Criminal Convictions): Statement: Should persons convicted of criminal offences in the past be allowed to contest elections in India? Arguments: I) No, such persons cannot serve the cause of the people and the country. II) Yes, it is a democracy—let people decide whom to vote for. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
This pits clean-representation norms against electoral choice. Both sides can be strong depending on how one weighs rehabilitation, gravity/timing of offences, and voter sovereignty.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Protects institutional integrity—convictions may indicate unfitness for office (especially serious crimes).
• Argument II: Emphasises democratic agency—voters can punish or reward candidates; blanket exclusions may disenfranchise choice.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments speak to core democratic values: clean governance (I) and voter sovereignty (II). Hence, either can be strong depending on the disqualification design (offence type, appeal status, time elapsed).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Integrity rationale ⇒ strong for serious final convictions.Evaluate II: Choice rationale ⇒ strong where rehabilitation/appeals warrant openness.

Verification / Alternative check:
Narrowly tailored disqualifications (for grave offences, post-appeal) reflect an attempt to balance both principles.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only one side misses the countervailing value; “neither” ignores legitimate concerns on both sides.

Common Pitfalls:
All-or-nothing bans; ignoring due process and proportionality.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.