Statement: Should children be prevented completely from watching television? Arguments: I. No. Television also carries useful educational content and information. II. Yes. It hampers the study of children. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The proposal is an absolute ban. Strong arguments must justify why a total prohibition is necessary rather than regulation of time and content.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Television includes educational channels and public service content.
• Harms relate to screen time excess and inappropriate content, both controllable.

Concept / Approach:
Examine proportionality. If milder measures achieve objectives, a total ban is not warranted.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Points to educational value, which undermines the need for a complete ban. Reasonable controls like time limits and curation address concerns while preserving benefits. Strong.Argument II: States that television hampers study. That may occur with unregulated viewing, but it does not justify a complete prohibition when balanced schedules and parental controls can solve the issue. Weak for an absolute ban.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many curricula integrate educational media with supervision, supporting the logic in I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II disregards proportionality; either or both misclassify; neither ignores the clear value noted in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming all television is harmful; ignoring parental controls and content filters.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.