Statement–Argument — Should a law be enacted so that people elected on a party ticket must remain in that party? Arguments: I) Yes; otherwise there is no effective solution to defections. II) No; it will cause frequent elections whenever no party gains a majority. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Defections can destabilize governments and subvert voter mandates. An anti-defection framework seeks to preserve the integrity of party-based electoral choices. We assess which argument addresses the core problem coherently.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Defection undermines government stability and accountability.
• Legal rules can deter opportunistic switching post-election.
• Election frequency is determined by loss of confidence/majority, not by the mere existence of anti-defection rules.

Concept / Approach:
I is strong as it ties the law directly to the problem it aims to solve—defection. II is weak: it misattributes frequent elections to anti-defection rules; in fact, such rules discourage mid-term switching and can reduce instability.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Anti-defection provisions typically coexist with stable legislative terms; governments fall when they lose genuine confidence, not because party loyalty is legally required.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Neither” misclassify the clear relevance of I and the weakness of II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing checks on opportunism with drivers of election frequency.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.