In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should sale of alcohol near highways be completely banned? Argument I: No, people should have full freedom to decide for themselves as it is their fundamental right. Argument II: Yes, because a very high proportion of road accidents involve drivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

Introduction / Context:
This question concerns a public safety rule about banning sale of alcohol near highways. Strong arguments here should address safety, accident data, or legal principles in a realistic way. Weak arguments either misuse ideas like fundamental rights or ignore the serious risks involved. You must judge which of the two arguments provides a convincing reason that policymakers can use when deciding whether to ban such sales.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The statement proposes banning sale of alcohol near highways.
• Argument I says no, claiming it violates people s fundamental freedom to decide.
• Argument II says yes, because a very high percentage of road accidents involve drivers under the influence of alcohol.
• We assume that road safety and reduction of accidents are important policy goals.

Concept / Approach:
In a democratic system, personal freedom is important, but it is always balanced against public safety. There is no fundamental right to buy alcohol at a specific location such as a highway. On the other hand, if reliable data show that alcohol consumption near highways leads to a high number of accidents, this becomes a strong reason in favour of restrictions. A strong argument must therefore be fact based and show how the proposed step directly reduces a serious risk, while a weak one either misinterprets rights or ignores harm to others.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Argument I. It claims that people have a fundamental right to decide whether to drink alcohol and where to buy it.Step 2: In reality, sale of alcohol is already restricted in many ways and is not treated as an absolute fundamental right, especially in sensitive places.Step 3: Therefore Argument I rests on a doubtful assumption and does not seriously balance safety against freedom, so it is weak.Step 4: Evaluate Argument II. It connects the sale and likely consumption of alcohol near highways with a very high proportion of road accidents.Step 5: Reducing accident risk on highways is a central reason for such a ban, so Argument II is directly relevant and strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a policymaker looking at statistics that say ninety percent of accidents involve drunk drivers. This would strongly support restrictions on access to alcohol near highways.At the same time, no constitutional text grants a specific right to buy alcohol on a highway route, so Argument I cannot stand as a strong legal objection.Hence only Argument II passes the test of a strong argument.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because Argument I misuses the concept of fundamental rights and ignores the safety dimension.Option C is wrong because both arguments are not strong; they clearly differ in quality.Option D is wrong because there is at least one clear and serious argument, namely Argument II.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to treat any mention of rights or freedom as automatically strong, even when the right is not actually fundamental.Another pitfall is to underestimate numerical data on accidents, which in such questions almost always support strong safety related arguments.

Final Answer:
Thus, only the accident based argument is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument II is strong.