Statement: Should the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) be empowered with penal powers? Arguments: I. Yes. Penal powers can deter and restrict rapidly increasing human-rights violations. II. No. People may avoid approaching human-rights bodies due to fear of legal red-tapism. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Enforcement capacity influences human-rights protection. Strong arguments should address deterrence, accountability, and access to justice.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Human-rights violations are a concern; current powers may be largely recommendatory.
• Penal powers can raise compliance costs for violators.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I clearly links stronger powers to deterrence and improved compliance—central to rights protection—hence strong. Argument II predicts reduced approachability due to “red-tapism,” but this is speculative; procedural design (time limits, summary procedures, outreach) can preserve accessibility while adding teeth.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strengthens enforcement and deterrence ⇒ strong.• II: Conflates power with bureaucracy; with proper safeguards, empowerment need not chill reporting ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Hybrid models (penal powers with graded sanctions and mediation) can balance deterrence and approachability, reinforcing I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II give weight to a conjecture not inherent to the policy.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming stricter enforcement necessarily reduces accessibility.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.