Statement–Argument (Government-Controlled Doctors): Statement: Should all practising doctors be brought under government control, salaried by the state, and required to treat patients free of cost? Arguments: I) No, such a move is undemocratic. II) Yes, despite problems, it would minimise unethical medical practices. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Health-system structure must be analysed through access, ethics, cost, and feasibility. Vague labels about democracy are insufficient; concrete mechanisms matter.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Calls the idea “undemocratic” without explaining rights violations or constitutional conflict—insufficient.
• Argument II: Claims state employment could reduce perverse incentives (over-treatment, kickbacks) by delinking income from procedures.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument specifies causal channels. II offers a mechanism (change incentives to curb unethical practices). I is a label without analysis.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Unsupported normative tag ⇒ weak.Test II: Addresses core policy objective—ethical practice and equitable access ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems mix public employment, insurance regulation, and accountability; the ethics argument is materially relevant even if the proposal is extreme.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/neither” misreads relative strength; I lacks substance.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “public control” with “undemocratic” without rights analysis.

Final Answer:
if only Argument II is strong.