Arguments evaluation (environmental policy and public cooperation): Can pollution realistically be controlled at the societal level? Assess the strength of the following arguments—(I) Yes: if everyone understands the hazards of pollution and cooperates to eliminate it, control is achievable; (II) No: crowded highways, factories/industries, and an ever-growing population expanding housing are beyond effective control—focusing on practicality, causality, and whether the reasoning is overly absolute.

Given data

• Problem context: Pollution harms health and the environment and is a collective-action problem.
• Argument I (Yes): If everyone recognises the hazards and cooperates, pollution can be controlled.
• Argument II (No): Highways, factories, industries, and population growth/land demand are beyond control, so pollution cannot be controlled.

Concept / Approach
Judge each argument by relevance, logical sufficiency, practicality, and whether it relies on absolute claims. Arguments that point to feasible levers (awareness, regulation, cooperation) are typically stronger than defeatist generalisations.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: Argument I identifies the right lever—broad cooperation enabled by awareness and policy—which is the cornerstone of pollution control (laws, enforcement, technology adoption, behavioural change). This makes I logically strong.Step 2: Argument II is an absolute assertion that key pollution sources are “beyond control.” In reality, these can be regulated (emission norms, fuel standards, public transit, zoning), so the claim is overly sweeping and weak.

Verification / Alternative
Historical reductions in urban air/water pollution came from collective action (catalytic converters, sewage treatment, bans on dirty fuels) — aligning with Argument I and contradicting II.

Common pitfalls

• Confusing “difficult to control” with “impossible to control.”
• Assuming individual sources cannot be regulated collectively.

Final Answer
Only argument I is strong.