Statement: Should all youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to beer bars? Arguments: I. No. It is not correct to prevent mature adults above 18, who can vote, from recreation. II. Yes. The entry fees to such pubs should also be hiked. III. No. There is no such curb in many Western countries. IV. Yes. Disallowing entry can help prevent bad company and harmful habits at a young age. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument or arguments.

Introduction / Context:
The issue balances individual rights at 18 plus against youth protection and harm minimization. Strong arguments must connect to coherent policy principles, not irrelevant side conditions or foreign comparisons.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• In many jurisdictions legal majority begins at 18 (voting, contracts).
• Alcohol policies often use graduated age thresholds for risk management.
• Youth exposure to high-risk environments correlates with harmful habits for some cohorts.

Concept / Approach:
Test each argument for relevance to rights and public health, and whether it proposes a mechanism addressing the stated goal.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Points to consistency: if 18 year olds are trusted with civic duties, blanket denial of entry needs a strong protective rationale.II: Weak. Hiking entry fees is not logically tied to under-21 prohibition or harm reduction fairness.III: Weak. Foreign practice is not a decisive policy argument due to differing contexts.IV: Strong. Preventive rationale targets developmental risk and social exposure at younger ages.

Verification / Alternative check:
Intermediate solutions (ID checks, controlled timings, server training) can reconcile I and IV in practice.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options with II or III rely on weak links; singletons ignore the countervailing strong argument.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming pricing equals prevention; over-generalizing from other countries.

Final Answer:
Only I and IV are strong