Statement–Argument — Should the Election Commission mandate that political parties allot 33% of tickets to women? Arguments: I) Yes; compulsory quotas will ensure significantly higher representation of women in politics. II) No; parties may push women into low-probability seats, undermining the intent. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Ticket quotas aim to correct under-representation. A strong argument can be either a compelling pro (representation impact) or a credible con (implementation loopholes). Both perspectives can be policy-relevant depending on design details (seat allocation rules, placement mandates).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Women are under-represented in elected bodies.
• Quotas can increase descriptive representation.
• Tokenism risks exist if parties concentrate women in unwinnable seats absent “placement” safeguards.

Concept / Approach:
I is strong: it targets the outcome—more women candidates and likely more women elected. II is also strong: it highlights a strategic workaround that can blunt the policy’s effectiveness, implying the need for design tweaks (e.g., distribution across winnable seats).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Some quota systems include “zipper” placement or reserved constituencies to prevent tokenism, validating both arguments’ relevance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” discount a valid countervailing concern; “Neither” ignores a real policy trade-off.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming quotas work without considering allocation strategy.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.