Statement–Argument (Law & Social Belief): Statement: Should there be a law specifically against superstition in India? Arguments: I) Yes, superstition is belief in magical influences and practices based on them. II) No, superstition is recognised by our forefathers and deeply rooted in society. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
The question asks whether a dedicated anti-superstition law is warranted. Strong arguments should weigh public harm, enforceability, rights, and proportionality—not definitions or appeals to tradition.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Only defines superstition; it does not show why a law is needed or workable.
• Argument II: Cites tradition and social rootedness; tradition alone does not determine legality or policy desirability.

Concept / Approach:
Argument strength depends on policy relevance. I is weak because a definition is not a justification for criminalisation or regulation. II is weak because “we have always done it” is not a policy criterion; harmful practices may be regulated despite tradition, while harmless beliefs may be left alone.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Does it address harm, scope, or enforcement? No—mere definition lacks policy substance.Test II: Does tradition ensure net benefit or compatibility with rights? No—appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.Hence, neither I nor II qualifies as a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “Yes” would cite demonstrable harms (fraud, violence) and gaps in existing laws; a strong “No” would show redundancy with existing penal and consumer-protection provisions. Neither happens here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Labeling either statement as strong misapplies the strength criteria.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing definition or tradition with justification.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.