Statement–Argument (Political Finance): Statement: Should companies’ donations to political parties be banned in India? Arguments: I) Yes, such donations were banned earlier (1969–1985). II) No, donations are not new; they exist since 1956. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Political finance debates hinge on transparency, undue influence, level playing field, and citizen trust. Strong arguments should address these criteria, not just cite historical precedent.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Appeals to an earlier ban (1969–1985) as reason to ban now.
• Argument II: Appeals to long-standing practice (since 1956) as reason not to ban.

Concept / Approach:
Precedent alone—“we did it before” or “we have always done it”—does not evaluate merit. A strong argument would discuss corruption risks, disclosure standards, compliance costs, or democratic integrity. Both I and II lack substantive evaluation and therefore are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Does a past ban prove today’s desirability? No—context and outcomes matter; mere history is insufficient.Test II: Does longevity guarantee desirability? No—long-standing practices may still be harmful.Hence neither argument is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “Yes” would show influence-buying risks and propose clean alternatives (public funding, caps, disclosures); a strong “No” would argue for regulated transparency over bans. Neither occurs.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Attributing strength to either confuses precedent with policy analysis.

Common Pitfalls:
Appeal to tradition/precedent fallacy.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.