Statement–Argument — Should tobacco production be banned in the country? Arguments: I) Yes; consumption in any form is injurious to health and imposes huge social costs. II) No; tobacco provides income to farmers. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Tobacco is a leading preventable cause of disease. Production bans, however, have economic implications for growers and supply chains. The question tests which argument squarely addresses societal welfare.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Tobacco use drives morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.
• Alternative livelihoods can be promoted for affected farmers.
• Policy options include taxation, warnings, marketing restrictions, and crop substitution.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: it invokes overwhelming public-health harms. Argument II is weak as a policy counter: income source alone does not justify producing a harmful commodity; the correct response is transition support, not perpetuation of harm.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Health economics consistently finds large negative externalities from tobacco.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Neither” misclassify the relative weight.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring transition policies for farmers when assessing bans.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.