Statement & Argument — Should the Government bring a strict anti-terror law (e.g., POTO-type)? Arguments: I. No, such laws endanger constitutionally and internationally accepted human rights standards. II. Yes, terrorism is a major threat and existing laws are insufficient.

Introduction / Context:
Security legislation involves a tradeoff between effective prevention and civil liberties. Both pro and anti views can be strong if they are principled, relevant, and policy-grounded.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Anti-terror frameworks can expand state powers and impact rights.
• Escalating threats may reveal gaps in existing law enforcement tools.
• Strength of an argument depends on relevance to core policy aims: protect life and liberty.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I focuses on rights safeguards; if well grounded, it is strong. Argument II focuses on security necessity due to insufficiency of existing laws; it is also strong. Because they support opposite decisions yet both are cogent, the correct test option is that either argument is strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong for highlighting rule of law and rights standards.2) II is strong for highlighting insufficiency against a major threat.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many exam keys accept the “either” choice when both sides give independent, substantial grounds.

Final Answer:
Either Argument I or II is strong.