Statement: Should India adopt open-ballot voting for elections to the Upper House? Arguments: I. Yes. It would reduce cross-voting and curb the influence of money power. II. No. It would increase cases related to anti-defection. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Open ballots are proposed to enhance transparency and reduce opportunistic voting. Strong arguments should connect to these electoral goals with clear causal links.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Objective: mitigate cross-voting and undue monetary influence.
• Anti-defection cases arise from party-switching or violating whips; the link to open ballots must be demonstrated, not assumed.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is directly aligned with the objective of transparency and enforceability of party discipline, making it strong. Argument II speculates that open ballots would increase anti-defection cases but does not show a mechanism; transparency could equally deter defections.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strong due to clear alignment with cross-voting/money-power concerns.• II: Weak; claims an effect without justification and arguably contrary to transparency logic.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider that traceability of votes under open ballot can discourage inducement-based switching, undercutting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II elevate an unsupported assertion; “neither” overlooks I’s clear relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating speculative counter-effects as strong arguments.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.