Statement–Argument (Ban on Non-Vegetarian Food): Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country? Arguments: I) Yes, it is expensive and beyond the means of most people. II) No, nothing should be banned in a democratic country. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Public bans must rest on compelling harm, health, or safety grounds with proportionality. Cost and absolute-liberty claims are inadequate by themselves.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: “Expensive” is not a ground for prohibition; price does not justify banning a lawful food choice.
• Argument II: “Nothing should be banned” is an absolute claim that ignores legitimate bans (e.g., hazardous substances).

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments must connect to legitimate aims (public health/externalities) and necessity. Neither argument establishes those standards; each is either irrelevant (price) or overbroad (absolute liberty).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: Misaligned rationale—affordability ≠ justification for prohibition.Assess II: Overgeneralisation—democracies do ban harmful items.Therefore, neither is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “No ban” case would cite choice, nutrition, and regulation over prohibition; a strong “Yes ban” case would show non-remediable public harm—neither appears.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing any one side rewards weak reasoning; “either” is invalid.

Common Pitfalls:
Using cost to justify prohibition; adopting absolutist positions without exceptions.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.