Statement–Argument — Should wearing helmets for both rider and pillion on motorbikes be enforced strictly? Arguments: I) Yes; it is the law and should be enforced uniformly. II) No; individuals should decide how to protect themselves. III) No; helmets protect only the head, not the rest of the body. IV) Yes; helmets are necessary because the head is highly vulnerable. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Road safety rules address externalities (accident costs, emergency load) and individual risk. Effective enforcement saves lives. We evaluate which arguments provide valid grounds for strict implementation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Head injuries are a leading cause of fatalities in two-wheeler crashes.
• Laws exist to standardize minimum safety behaviour in public spaces.
• Pillion riders face comparable head injury risk.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: rule of law requires uniform enforcement; selective compliance undermines deterrence. Argument IV is strong because it identifies the key risk mechanism—head impact—and the protective function of helmets. II is weak: personal liberty does not override public safety externalities and legal standards. III is weak: partial protection is not a reason to abandon an effective protection for the most vulnerable organ.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Jurisdictions with strict helmet laws show reduced head trauma and mortality, reinforcing I and IV.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Combinations with II/III misclassify weak reasoning as strong.

Common Pitfalls:Equating personal choice with public-road safety norms.

Final Answer:I and IV are strong.