Arguments evaluation (student unions in campuses): Should there be students' unions in colleges/universities? Consider—(I) No: this will create a political atmosphere on campus; (II) Yes: unions are necessary because students are future political leaders—assess which argument(s) are strong based on relevance and sufficiency.

Given data

• Question: Whether to have student unions in higher education institutions.
• I: Opposes unions because they create a political atmosphere.
• II: Supports unions because students are future political leaders.

Concept / Approach
A strong argument should be specific, balanced, and tied to institutional objectives (representation, welfare, discipline), not broad fear or vague future roles.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: I labels a likely outcome (political atmosphere) but does not show it harms academic or welfare goals; politics per se may be constructive (representation), so the claim is insufficient.Step 2: II invokes an eventual career trajectory (future leaders) that does not justify unions in the present or relate to educational benefits.Step 3: With neither argument tightly reasoned to the institutional purpose, neither is strong.

Verification / Alternative
Stronger arguments would address governance, student rights, or academic impact—absent here.

Common pitfalls

• Accepting generic fear or aspiration as sufficient institutional reasoning.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II is strong.