Statement–Argument — Should a person debarred from contesting elections be allowed to become a state Chief Minister? Arguments: I) No; a debarred person cannot meet the constitutional requirement of becoming an MLA/MLC within six months, making such appointment untenable. II) Yes; in a democracy, popular mandate should override technical legal disqualifications. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Constitutional design permits a non-member to be appointed Chief Minister temporarily, subject to getting elected within a stipulated period. Disqualification or debarment undermines this pathway. The question is which argument better reflects workable governance.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A debarred person is legally barred from contesting within the relevant period.
• Appointment without the possibility of meeting the membership condition creates a constitutional dead end.
• Democracy functions under constitutional rule of law, not sentiment alone.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: it pinpoints the structural impossibility of fulfilling the membership requirement. Argument II is weak: “people’s mandate” cannot erase legal disqualifications; the mandate must be expressed within constitutional bounds.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Stable governance demands that office holders be eligible to sit in the legislature; otherwise accountability and voting rights are compromised.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Neither” misread constitutional constraints.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing popularity with eligibility; the latter is a hard legal condition.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.