Statement–Argument (Journalist Access to Sensitive Information): Statement: Should the government restrict journalists’ access to sensitive information to avoid hype and potential harm? Arguments: I) Yes, sensational coverage can distort facts and escalate crises. II) No, robust access enables the media to expose malfunctions and support accountability. III) Yes, premature disclosure can harass or endanger people involved. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Balancing press freedom with public safety is central to democratic governance. Restrictions must be narrowly tailored to prevent harm, not to shield authorities from scrutiny.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sensitive information can affect security operations or ongoing investigations.
• Media oversight is vital for transparency.
• Disclosure risks include misinformation, panic, and harassment of alleged persons.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument identifies concrete harms or benefits and links them to the policy. Arguments I and III articulate specific risk mechanisms from disclosure; Argument II is overly absolute (“access to all information”).

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Sensationalism and distortion can magnify crises ⇒ decision-relevant ⇒ strong.II: Access “to all” is overbroad; oversight can occur with calibrated access (briefings, embargoes) ⇒ weak in this absolute form.III: Protecting identities/operations to prevent harassment or harm ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice uses graded classification and time-bound embargoes—consistent with I and III, not II’s absolutism.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II validates an absolute that ignores necessary limits; excluding I/III ignores real harms.

Common Pitfalls:
False dichotomy between secrecy and total openness; ignoring proportional safeguards.

Final Answer:
Only I and III are strong.