Statement–Argument (Election Synchronisation): Statement: Should Parliamentary and State Assembly elections be clubbed together (held simultaneously)? Arguments: I) Yes, it will reduce the overall cost of conducting elections. II) No, because many voters are illiterate and would not manage two responsibilities, risking harm to democracy. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Simultaneous elections are evaluated on cost, logistics, governance continuity, and voter comprehension. Strong arguments must link to tangible effects, not stereotypes about voter capacity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Claims cost reduction—fewer deployments, shared logistics, single preparation cycle.
• Argument II: Says illiterate voters cannot handle two ballots, hence democracy is jeopardised.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is relevant and plausible—cost is a standard policy metric. Argument II is weak: literacy does not preclude casting two ballots; ballots/symbols and assistance protocols already support voter comprehension. It also asserts a dire outcome without mechanism.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Direct cost nexus—valid and pragmatic.Evaluate II: Overgeneralises voter limits and ignores mitigations; not a strong ground.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even critics of synchronisation usually cite federalism and campaign timing, not voter literacy; II misses the core concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/neither” misreads: only I has a concrete policy linkage here.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming literacy equals voting competence; ignoring ballot design aids.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.