Statement–Argument (Censorship & Art): Statement: Should films based on ghosts (supernatural/horror) be banned? Arguments: I) No, filmmaking is an art form and creative freedom should be preserved. II) Yes, such films increase superstition. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Censorship questions weigh harm prevention against freedom of expression. A strong argument here must show concrete harm that cannot be mitigated by ratings/disclaimers—or defend artistic liberty.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Protects creative freedom—directly relevant to the ban proposal.
• Argument II: Claims superstition rises but provides no necessity or proportionality analysis for a ban.

Concept / Approach:
Freedom of expression is a recognised policy value; restrictions require specific, demonstrable harms and proportional remedies. Mere correlation with “superstition” is too vague to justify prohibition, especially with less-restrictive alternatives (certification, advisories).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: It aligns with default liberty assumptions in cultural production—strong.Assess II: Lacks evidence, scope, and consideration of milder tools—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Where films risk copycat harm or incitement, tailored restrictions may apply; superstition per se does not meet that threshold.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I stands as a strong, principle-based reason; “either/neither” misclassifies.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating discomfort with genre as grounds for bans.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.