Statement–Argument (Ban on Genetically Modified Imported Seeds): Statement: Should there be a complete ban on genetically modified (GM) imported seeds? Arguments: I) Yes, banning imports will boost demand for domestically developed seeds. II) No, GM seeds are the only way to substantially increase production. III) Yes, GM products will adversely affect consumer health. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Policy on GM seeds should be evidence-based, weighing biosafety, yield, farmer welfare, and innovation. Blanket bans or absolute claims without evidence are weak.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I assumes protectionism as a sufficient reason—market-substitution is not a public-interest rationale per se.
• II claims “only way”—false exclusivity; productivity can rise via multiple avenues.
• III asserts health harm categorically without risk assessment or regulatory context.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments require risk/benefit analysis, regulatory capacity, and trait-specific assessment—not blanket, unevidenced statements. Thus, none of I/II/III, as framed, is strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Protectionist benefit ≠ public interest ⇒ weak.II: “Only way” fallacy ⇒ weak.III: Unqualified harm claim without evidence/safeguards ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Sound policy uses case-by-case approvals, biosafety trials, labelling—not categorical positions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any combination would validate unsupported assertions.

Common Pitfalls:
All-or-nothing stances; ignoring regulatory science.

Final Answer:
None is strong.