Statement: Voter turnout was less than 40% in the recent assembly elections.\nCourses of Action:\nI. The election commission should cancel the entire election because the votes cast are not adequate to represent the people.\nII. The election commission should take away the voting rights of those who did not vote.

Introduction / Context:
Low turnout raises legitimacy concerns but does not automatically invalidate elections unless specific legal thresholds or irregularities are breached. Remedies must respect constitutional provisions and citizens’ rights.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Turnout fell below 40%.
• No mention of malpractice or force majeure preventing voting.

Concept / Approach:
Cancellation (I) without legal basis undermines stability and may disenfranchise those who did vote. Stripping non-voters of rights (II) is punitive and violates democratic freedoms; voting is a right, not a compulsory duty in most jurisdictions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Reject I: validity depends on law; low turnout alone is insufficient.2) Reject II: coercive sanctions for non-voting are unconstitutional in many systems and counterproductive.3) Constructive measures (not options) include civic education, facilitation (postal/advance voting), and better access.

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative democracies handle low turnout via political reforms, not retroactive invalidation or penalties.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Both propose extreme, unlawful steps; Either or Both remain indefensible.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating concern with grounds for nullification; viewing abstention as punishable offense.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.