In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement as true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should Chinese crackers be banned? Argument I: No, banning them will hurt China by reducing its sales. Argument II: Yes, crackers kill insects.

Introduction / Context:
This statement-and-argument question asks whether Chinese crackers should be banned. The two arguments presented are unusual: one focuses on the impact on China's sales, and the other says crackers kill insects. We must assess whether either argument provides a serious, relevant basis for deciding Indian policy on banning crackers.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should Chinese crackers be banned?
Argument I: No, because China will be hurt by the decision.
Argument II: Yes, because crackers kill insects.
Assume the decision is being considered from the perspective of Indian authorities, and issues like public safety, pollution and domestic industry may be relevant in general (though not mentioned here).

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should:

Be directly relevant to the interests and responsibilities of the decision-maker (here, India or its government).
Invoke significant and realistic consequences (e.g., safety, environment, economy of the deciding country).
Avoid trivial, irrelevant or weak considerations.

We must test each argument against these criteria.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It says we should not ban Chinese crackers because China will be economically hurt. However, Indian policy decisions are primarily based on India's national interests (safety, environment, domestic industry, trade balance), not on whether another country loses sales. The argument does not show how China being hurt affects Indian citizens' welfare in a meaningful way. Hence, Argument I is not relevant to the core decision and is a weak argument. Evaluate Argument II: It suggests we should ban crackers because they kill insects. While crackers may harm insects and other small creatures, policy discussions around crackers typically focus on human health, noise pollution, air quality, and safety. The argument does not show why killing insects is a decisive reason for a ban, and in fact, some insects are considered pests. Therefore, Argument II is also weak and does not form a convincing basis for a national ban.

Verification / Alternative check:
Think about what a serious debate on banning crackers would involve: topics like child labour in factories, import dependence, environmental damage and accident rates. Neither of the given arguments makes any reference to these key factors. One centres foreign economic loss, the other focuses on insects only, so both fail to address the main policy concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only Argument I as strong wrongly treats foreign sales as a major factor for Indian policy decisions.
Choosing only Argument II as strong overestimates the significance of insect deaths compared with human and environmental welfare.
Saying both arguments are strong misjudges both, because neither is grounded in central, realistic concerns.
Claiming that the strength cannot be decided is incorrect; we can clearly see that both arguments are tangential and weak.

Common Pitfalls:
Sometimes students think that any argument “against banning” or “for banning” must be accepted as strong, but in reasoning questions only serious, policy-level considerations count. Another pitfall is to try to see hidden meaning, such as assuming “insects” stands for broader ecological harm; but we must stick to what is explicitly written.

Final Answer:
Neither Argument I nor Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct choice is if neither I nor II is strong.