Statement: Should a Conditional Access System (CAS) be implemented in India so TV viewers can select channels and pay only for those chosen? Arguments: I. Yes. CAS would give viewers freedom of choice and allow payment only for selected channels. II. No. The framework ignores clear rights/obligations of broadcasters, cable operators, and consumers, and may end up serving commercial interests over genuine consumer benefit. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Statement–Argument questions judge whether an argument directly advances or undermines the policy in a principled, relevant way. Here, the policy is to implement a Conditional Access System (CAS) so viewers choose and pay only for selected channels.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• CAS enables channel-level subscription.
• Strong arguments should focus on consumer welfare, transparency, and enforceability.
• We are not provided external statistics; evaluate intrinsic merit.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I connects CAS to core consumer benefits—choice and price discrimination aligned with usage. Argument II claims the system neglects rights/obligations and primarily serves commercial interests, but provides no mechanism why CAS inherently prevents a proper regulatory framework or why it must harm consumers.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• Assess I: Freedom to pick channels and pay only for them directly addresses consumer surplus and allocative efficiency ⇒ strong.• Assess II: Raises governance/design concerns but as stated is generic and assumes frameworks cannot be clarified. Without showing inherent defect in CAS, it is speculative ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
If II offered concrete evidence (e.g., mandated bundling negating choice, opaque pricing that historically raised bills), it could be stronger. As framed, it lacks specifics.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II overvalue an unsubstantiated caution; “either” is incorrect because I is independently strong; “neither” ignores I’s direct relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing design/implementation gaps with invalidation of the underlying policy objective.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.