Statement–Argument — Should free train service for participants in rallies organized by reputed parties be banned? Arguments: I) Yes; rallies often create traffic jams and disrupt daily life, causing significant inconvenience to the public. II) No; otherwise people will hesitate to participate in rallies. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The state must balance freedom of assembly with minimizing public disruption and safeguarding essential services. The question asks whether subsidizing transport for rallies should be banned, judged purely on argument quality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Mass rallies can impose externalities: congestion, diversion of public resources, and public inconvenience.
• Free transport may increase rally size beyond what cities can manage safely.
• Democratic participation remains possible without state-subsidized travel.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I points to concrete, public-interest costs from encouragement via free transport. Argument II is weak because the mere possibility of lower turnout does not trump public cost, and rallies can be organized with cost-sharing or permits without blanket subsidies.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Common practice uses permits, route planning, and cost recovery to manage externalities rather than subsidizing transport.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” and “Neither” misclassify II’s weakness or ignore I’s validity.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating democratic rights with entitlement to public subsidies for logistics.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.