Statement–Argument — Should government doctors come under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)? Arguments: I) No; fear of litigation may hinder bold, time-critical care in emergencies, risking patient lives. II) Yes; patients pay for care and deserve accountability and compensation if harmed by negligence, so doctors should be within CPA. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Consumer protection regimes aim to provide accessible redress for deficient services. Bringing public doctors under CPA weighs accountability against concerns about defensive medicine and decision latency during emergencies.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• CPA offers speedy, lower-cost forums for consumers.
• Medical negligence entails standards of care, not perfection.
• Emergency care requires swift judgment under uncertainty.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strong: public accountability, compensation for proven negligence, and quality improvement align with CPA’s purpose. Argument I, as framed, is weakly generalized; good CPA design, clinical protocols, and indemnity systems can preserve rapid emergency care while still enabling redress for negligence. The mere possibility of a “chilling effect” does not defeat the accountability rationale.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems blend malpractice protection for good-faith emergency acts with robust negligence redress, showing compatibility.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Neither” misclassify the strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing accountability for negligence with punishment for bad outcomes despite proper care.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.