Statement & Argument — Should strikes in the field of education be banned? Arguments: I. Yes, strikes violate professional ethics toward students and society. II. Yes, strikes adversely affect students’ learning and academic calendars.

Introduction / Context:
Education serves a public mission. Arguments are strong if they connect to obligations of care and measurable student outcomes. Here, both arguments defend a ban and must be assessed for relevance and sufficiency.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Educators bear fiduciary duties to learners.
• Strikes can cancel classes, delay examinations, and disrupt progression.

Concept / Approach:
Ethics (professional duty) and impact (student harm) are independent, policy-relevant strands. If each strand stands on its own, both arguments are strong together.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I (Ethics): Professions entrusted with minors and public funds are held to continuity of service; withdrawing service harms dependents. Strong.II (Impact): Empirical harm—lost instruction time, preparation gaps—directly supports a ban. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Some may argue for limited collective action with safeguards. That does not nullify the strength of I and II as stated.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” understates that both are independently strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring student externalities when assessing labor actions in essential services.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are strong.