Statement & Argument — Should there be repolling where booth-capturing occurred? Arguments: I. Yes, repolling restores electoral fairness when the process is compromised. II. No, it is a wastage of resources.

Introduction / Context:
Booth-capturing invalidates free and fair elections. The core policy goal is electoral integrity, not cost minimization.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Booth-capturing distorts voter will and violates law.
• Repolling can restore a valid mandate in affected booths.
• Election budgets exist to uphold legitimacy.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument references the primary objective of the system. Elections exist to capture the electorate’s true preference; fairness is non-negotiable.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I ties directly to legitimacy and due process. It is relevant, specific, and strong.2) Argument II cites cost. While costs matter, they cannot justify accepting a tainted result; thus II is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if repolling imposes expenses, the cost of illegitimate outcomes is higher for democracy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II does not address the foundational requirement of fair elections.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating operational frugality with legitimacy preservation.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.