Statement–Argument — Should the Government close all educational institutions for a month to curb the fast spread of a contagious viral infection? Arguments: I) No; closures alone cannot curb spread and must be combined with other public-health measures. II) No; students may crowd malls, markets, and playgrounds during the break, worsening transmission. III) Yes; young people are more prone to infection and should stay indoors. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Public-health interventions work best as layered measures: closures, masking, ventilation, testing, isolation, and risk communication. Evaluating the arguments requires distinguishing evidence-based reasoning from unsupported generalizations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Institution closures reduce on-site mixing but do not ensure reduced community mixing.
• Behavioural substitution can undercut benefits (crowding in other venues).
• Age-specific susceptibility and severity vary by pathogen; blanket claims may be inaccurate.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong because it points to the insufficiency of a single measure and implies a comprehensive approach. Argument II is strong because it highlights a known risk: unsupervised closures can shift mixing to informal settings. Argument III is weak: it asserts an age-specific vulnerability without evidence and assumes staying indoors will result from closures.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Experience in epidemics shows that closures need complementary measures (gathering limits, targeted messaging) to yield net benefit, consistent with I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” neglects behavioural offset. “Only III” relies on an unproven generalization. “None” ignores two valid policy points.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating closures as a panacea; ignoring substitution effects.

Final Answer:
I and II are strong.