Critical reasoning – Should the government ban all forms of protests (strikes and processions)? Arguments: I. Yes. That is the only way to teach employees discipline. II. No. The government cannot deprive citizens of basic rights. III. Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruptions.

Introduction / Context:
Democratic systems protect civil liberties such as peaceful assembly and protest, but they must also maintain essential services and productivity. We evaluate the force of each argument with respect to rights and practical outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I claims bans are the only path to discipline.
• II asserts that blanket bans would violate basic rights.
• III argues that bans maximize productivity.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments must be germane to rights or outcomes. Overly paternalistic, punitive motives (I) without clear public interest are weak; constitutional rights (II) and system-wide impact claims (III) are relevant, though III reflects a controversial trade-off.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I – Weak: “Teach a lesson” is punitive and vague; it neither shows necessity nor proportionality.II – Strong: Fundamental rights arguments are central to the policy question; blanket prohibition likely violates constitutional protections.III – Strong in this test’s framework: It addresses a core objective (uninterrupted productivity). While contestable against rights, it is still a directly relevant policy consideration.

Verification / Alternative check:
In reasoning tests, arguments may be strong even when competing (rights vs. productivity); we judge relevance and specificity, not final policy choice.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None / Only I & II / Only I & III / All: Each misclassifies I as strong or ignores III’s relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing emotional retribution with policy rationale; assuming only one side can be “strong.”

Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong