Statement–Argument — Should political parties be banned? Arguments: I) Yes; it is necessary to teach a lesson to politicians. II) No; banning parties would end democracy. Identify the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Political parties are core to representative democracy: organizing platforms, candidate selection, and legislative coordination. Arguments should reflect constitutional function rather than emotional reactions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Modern democracies rely on parties for aggregation of interests.
• Eliminating parties severely undermines electoral competition and governance.
• “Teach a lesson” is punitive and vague, not a governance principle.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is an emotional, retributive motive lacking policy rationale and proportionality. Argument II correctly states that banning parties undercuts democracy’s institutional framework, a direct, structural reason.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A measured reform argument might propose regulation, not abolition; II remains the only strong argument provided.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” would wrongly elevate I. “Neither” ignores II’s strength.

Common Pitfalls:
Letting frustration with politicians justify dismantling institutions.

Final Answer:
if only Argument II is strong.