Statement–Argument — Should the judiciary be independent of the executive? Arguments: I) Yes; independence curbs unlawful or arbitrary actions by the executive. II) No; an independent judiciary will prevent bold executive measures. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Separation of powers underpins constitutional governance. Judicial independence prevents abuse and protects rights by reviewing executive actions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Courts check legality and proportionality of executive acts.
• “Boldness” is not a legal criterion; lawfulness is.
• Independent review builds legitimacy and public trust.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it states the core function of independence—curbing illegality. Argument II is weak: boldness without legality cannot justify subordinating courts.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Judicial review coexists with effective governance; lawful bold measures survive scrutiny.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Credit to II conflates boldness with good governance.

Common Pitfalls:Framing checks and balances as obstacles rather than safeguards.

Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.