Statement–Argument (Ban Kite-Flying in Metropolitan Cities): Statement: Should kite-flying be banned in all metropolitan cities? Arguments: I) Yes, an authentic survey across metros reports kite-flying as a major cause of road accidents. II) Yes, because one metropolitan city (e.g., Chennai) has already banned it. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Urban safety regulation should be evidence-based and proportionate. The proposal is a blanket ban on kite-flying across all metros.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I cites a multi-city survey attributing a significant share of accidents to kite-flying hazards (e.g., strings, distractions).
• Argument II relies on a single-city policy precedent.
• We assume regulators can craft targeted rules (designated zones, safe strings, time windows).

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must rest on broad, relevant evidence. Argument I references cross-metro data suggesting a systemic safety problem—this justifies serious consideration (ban or strict regulation). Argument II is an example of appeal to authority/precedent; one city’s decision does not establish necessity or suitability elsewhere.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Evidence-driven claim spanning all metros ⇒ strong.II: Anecdotal precedent; lacks generalisability and supporting data ⇒ weak.Conclusion: Only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if a total ban is deemed excessive, I still supports robust controls. II alone cannot justify a national policy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Crediting II endorses an argument from precedent without evidence; “either/both/neither” misclassify the strength profile.

Common Pitfalls:
Projecting a local rule to national scale without data; ignoring targeted, less-restrictive alternatives.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.