In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should eating paan at public places be made a punishable offence? Argument I: Yes, because people eat paan, spit on the ground, and make public places dirty and unhygienic. Argument II: No, because many Indians love paan and consider it part of their culture.

Introduction / Context:
This question deals with civic cleanliness and public behaviour. The statement proposes making eating paan at public places punishable. Two arguments are provided. A strong argument here should focus on public hygiene, cleanliness, and health or on individual rights in a balanced way. A weak argument will usually just mention popularity or habits, without connecting them to the real issue of cleanliness and public interest.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The proposal is to make eating paan at public places a punishable act.
• Argument I says yes, because people eat paan, spit, and make public areas dirty.
• Argument II says no, because Indians love paan.
• We assume civic authorities want to keep public spaces clean and pleasant for all.

Concept / Approach:
When the question is about public rules, strong arguments must relate to the impact on society, such as cleanliness, hygiene, and visual appearance. Argument I highlights that people who eat paan often spit the juice on walls, roads, and public buildings, leading to dirty and unhygienic surroundings. This directly supports the need for regulation. Argument II merely states that paan is popular and liked by many, which does not automatically mean behaviour in public spaces cannot be regulated. Popularity alone is not a sufficient basis to reject a rule intended to protect cleanliness.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider Argument I. It connects the act of eating paan in public with spitting and dirtying public places, which is a direct negative consequence.Step 2: Dirty public spaces can spread disease, create a bad impression, and increase cleaning costs, so this argument is strong and relevant.Step 3: Now consider Argument II, which says Indians love paan. While this may be true, it does not address the actual problem of spitting and dirt.Step 4: Loving a food item does not mean people must be allowed to consume it in ways that harm public hygiene.Step 5: Therefore Argument II is weak, and only Argument I stands as a strong argument supporting the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a policymaker. They would be convinced by data or observations about dirt, stains, and disease spread, not by the fact that an item is liked.Regulations already exist for many popular habits when they disturb others, such as smoking bans in some public spaces, so popularity is not a decisive reason.This confirms that Argument I is strong and Argument II is not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because popularity and love for paan do not justify creating dirty public areas.Option C is wrong because both arguments do not have equal strength; one is clearly practical while the other is emotional.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument I, is clearly strong and relevant.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes treat cultural liking as an automatic defence for any behaviour, ignoring public hygiene issues.Another pitfall is to forget that laws and punishments are usually justified by harm prevention, not by what people enjoy.

Final Answer:
Hence, only the first argument that focuses on cleanliness and hygiene is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument I is strong.