Statement & Argument — Should roadside hoardings be banned? Arguments: I. Yes, they distract drivers and disturb traffic flow. II. No, banning them would result in loss of advertising revenue.

Introduction / Context:
Statement–Argument questions test whether an argument is relevant, specific, and logically strong in relation to the given statement. The statement asks if roadside hoardings should be banned. We must judge each argument on merit, not on personal opinion.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public roads are high-risk environments where safety and smooth traffic flow are primary objectives.
• Hoardings can introduce visual clutter and distraction to drivers and pedestrians.
• Advertising revenue, while useful, is not the primary criterion for road design and safety policy.

Concept / Approach:
In this topic, a strong argument is one that is directly connected to the decision criteria that authorities should use. For road policies, core criteria include safety, congestion reduction, and public welfare. Revenue is a secondary consideration unless tied to public interest in a compelling way.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate Argument I: It claims hoardings disturb traffic. This is specific, relevant to safety, and aligns with core policy criteria. Hence, it is strong.2) Evaluate Argument II: It appeals to revenue loss. This is tangential and does not address safety or welfare. As framed, it is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Suppose authorities run a safety-first policy. Argument I clearly supports such policy. Argument II would be persuasive only if it showed that revenue funds safety measures directly; the argument does not do so.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II alone is weak. Both strong or either strong is incorrect because II lacks core relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Overvaluing revenue without tying it to safety or public benefit.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.