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. In a democracy nothing should be banned. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Food-policy bans implicate personal liberty, public health, culture, and markets. Strong arguments must rest on compelling public-interest grounds (health externalities, safety) and legal proportionality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Total ban” is an extreme restriction on personal choice.
• Price levels and democratic systems are orthogonal to necessity of bans.

Concept / Approach:
Assess if each argument provides a principled reason for an absolute prohibition.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Expense does not justify banning. If affordability is the concern, policy tools include subsidies for alternatives or taxation, not prohibition.Argument II: Democracies do ban harmful goods (e.g., toxic substances). The absolute claim that “nothing should be banned” is incorrect; proportionality matters. Thus II is also weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A hypothetical strong argument would need evidence of significant external harm (safety/health risks) justifying a narrowly tailored ban; not stated here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options endorsing I/II treat irrelevant or incorrect premises as decisive. “Either” misclassifies weak arguments; “both” is impossible since both are flawed.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating price with public interest; misconstruing democratic freedom as absence of all regulation.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong.