Statement: Should the sale of tobacco products be restricted to only a few licensed outlets in each city/town? Arguments: I. Yes. Concentrating sales points will substantially reduce tobacco consumption. II. No. Buyers should find tobacco products at convenient locations. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Public-health policies often reduce availability and accessibility of harmful products to curb initiation and impulse purchases. A strong argument should relate the restriction to health outcomes, not convenience alone.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Tobacco has negative health externalities and addiction risks.
• Fewer points of sale can increase friction costs and enable better enforcement of age checks.

Concept / Approach:
Assess whether the argument advances legitimate public-health goals.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Limiting outlets can reduce impulsive purchases, improve compliance monitoring, and support taxation/packaging rules. This directly furthers health policy objectives, making it a strong argument.Argument II: Convenience is not a sufficient ground to trump health policy. Ease of access for harmful products is not a public-interest criterion. Hence II is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Similar controls exist for alcohol/pharmacy-grade products in various jurisdictions, supporting the logic in I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” prioritises convenience over public health; “either” treats a weak convenience claim as equal to a health-based rationale; “neither” ignores I; “both” is inconsistent.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating consumer convenience with public good; ignoring enforcement benefits of licensing.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.