Road safety — Should the helmet rule for both driver and pillion be enforced strictly? Statement: Should wearing a helmet for both driver and pillion rider on a motorbike be enforced strictly? Arguments: I. Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all. II. No. Each individual should decide personal safety. III. No. Only the head is protected; the rest of the body is not. IV. Yes. Head is highly vulnerable; a helmet is necessary protection.

Introduction / Context:
We assess the strength of arguments concerning strict enforcement of helmet laws for riders and pillions. The central considerations are rule of law and evidence-based safety.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Helmet use reduces head injuries and fatalities.
• Public road use is regulated to protect not only the individual but also societal costs (healthcare, productivity).
• Enforcement is part of effective safety policy.

Concept / Approach:
Arguments grounded in rule compliance (I) and clear safety rationale (IV) are strong. Arguments appealing to absolute personal liberty (II) ignore externalities. Claiming incomplete protection (III) is irrelevant—partial protection that saves lives is still worthwhile.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Global data consistently show helmet mandates lower fatalities; enforcement boosts compliance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I and III: includes irrelevant III and omits IV.
• Only II and IV: includes weak II.
• All strong / None strong: misclassify the clearly strong I and IV.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming safety laws are purely private; they manage shared risks and costs.

Final Answer:
Only I and IV are strong