Statement–Argument — Should oil companies be allowed to fix petroleum prices based on market conditions? Arguments: I) Yes; this is the only way to make oil companies commercially viable. II) No; market-linked pricing will raise retail prices of essentials and cause hardship to the masses. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
This prompt asks whether petroleum pricing should be market-determined by oil companies. In Statement–Argument questions, an argument is “strong” when it gives a relevant, policy-grade reason that would reasonably influence a decision-maker. Here, one argument points to commercial viability (sustainability of suppliers); the other highlights consumer hardship (affordability of essentials). Both speak to core policy trade-offs—supplier solvency vs. consumer protection.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Petroleum products are widely used inputs that affect inflation.
• Oil companies face input-cost volatility (crude price, exchange rate, taxes).
• Regulation may cap prices, subsidize, or allow pass-through.

Concept / Approach:
A strong pro argument would tie market pricing to financial health, investment, and supply security. A strong con argument would connect pass-through to inflation and welfare harm. Neither line is inherently illogical: both speak to consequences that a policy-maker must weigh.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Countries often pair market pricing with safety nets (targeted subsidies, tax calibration). The very need for balancing confirms that each side offers a legitimate concern.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the opposite valid concern. “Neither” wrongly dismisses both as irrelevant.

Common Pitfalls:
Demanding certainty; public-pricing problems are trade-offs, not absolutes.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.