Statement: Should consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India? Arguments: I. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to certain diseases. II. No. Each individual should have the right to choose what to consume. III. No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on the human body. IV. Yes. It is banned in many other countries. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument or arguments.

Introduction / Context:
Public health bans are justified when clear, material harms exist and less restrictive alternatives cannot achieve the objective. The strength of the arguments turns on evidence and proportionality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Aerated drinks are widely used consumer products.
• Policies can range from labels and taxes to outright bans.
• Evidence quality and risk magnitude matter for banning common goods.

Concept / Approach:
Test necessity and evidence claims. Overbroad or appeal-to-others reasoning is weak; evidence-based rebuttals are stronger.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Overstates necessity by claiming a ban is the only way; milder tools (warnings, sugar taxes, age limits in specific contexts) exist. Weak.II: Rights matter but are limited by proven public harms; argument is generic and does not address health evidence or alternatives. We treat it as insufficient alone.III: Strong. If there is no confirmed adverse effect, proportionality fails; bans require robust evidence of significant harm.IV: Appeal to other countries is not determinative; contexts differ, and not all have bans.

Verification / Alternative check:
Risk-proportionate approaches typically precede bans unless harms are severe and well established.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Combinations including I or IV rely on weak logic; II alone does not suffice against public health rationales.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating bans as first resort; citing foreign practice as proof.

Final Answer:
Only III is strong