Statement–Argument — Should the private sector be permitted to operate telephone services? Arguments: I) Yes; private providers already operate successfully in many advanced countries. II) No; it is risky to place such services in private hands. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Policy about telecom service provision can consider comparative institutional evidence. A strong argument should provide relevant precedent or mechanism (competition, investment, quality) rather than vague risk claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Many countries allow private telecoms with regulation (licensing, spectrum, QoS).
• Comparative evidence can be probative when contexts are sufficiently similar.
• “Risky” without specifying risks (monopoly abuse, consumer harm) lacks weight.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I appeals to international practice as evidence of feasibility and potential benefits under regulation—a relevant, sufficiently general reason. Argument II asserts an unspecified risk without mechanism or mitigation analysis; thus weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “No” would cite concrete harms (e.g., regulatory capture, reduced universal service) and why they outweigh benefits; here, it does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” requires both to be strong; II is not. “Neither” fails because I is strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating unspecified fear as decisive without policy analysis.

Final Answer:
if only Argument I is strong.