A statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong. Statement: Should very revealing dresses be banned? Arguments: 1. Yes, such dresses disturb people and may lead to abuse. 2. No, wearing clothes of one's choice is a fundamental right of the individual.

Introduction / Context:
This is a statement-and-argument problem about whether very revealing dresses should be banned. The first argument focuses on possible social disturbance and abuse, while the second argument highlights the fundamental right to choose one's clothing. We must judge which argument is strong from a logical and policy perspective, not from personal moral beliefs.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should very revealing dresses be banned?
Argument 1: Yes. They disturb people and may lead to abuse.
Argument 2: No. Choosing what to wear is a fundamental right of individuals.
Assume society has legal frameworks protecting both public order and personal liberty.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is:

Directly related to the statement.
Logically sound and realistic.
Important enough that policymakers would genuinely consider it.

Arguments based on vague, unmeasurable effects or on blaming victims rather than wrongdoers are treated as weak. Arguments invoking clearly recognised legal or constitutional principles are usually strong if stated appropriately.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument 1: It says revealing dresses “disturb people and create abuse”. This is vague: what kind of disturbance is meant is not clearly specified, and the term “create abuse” could wrongly suggest that clothing causes abusive behaviour instead of holding offenders responsible. Moreover, the argument jumps directly to banning rather than considering less extreme measures like codes in specific workplaces or awareness campaigns. Because it is imprecise, somewhat one-sided, and does not propose a balanced solution, Argument 1 is considered weak. Evaluate Argument 2: It states that wearing clothes of one's own choice is a fundamental right of the individual. Personal liberty and freedom of expression, including dress, are widely recognised in democratic societies, subject to reasonable restrictions in limited contexts. A blanket ban on “too revealing” dresses would be a serious restriction of individual freedom and is therefore justified only by very strong evidence of harm. Thus, Argument 2 is directly tied to an important constitutional and human-rights principle and is a strong argument against a general ban.

Verification / Alternative check:
If a government considered such a ban, the most serious questions would be: Does it violate basic freedoms? Are there less restrictive alternatives? Argument 2 clearly addresses this core issue of fundamental rights. Argument 1 does not clarify why the disturbance mentioned cannot be addressed through law enforcement, education or context-specific dress codes instead of an outright ban.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying both arguments are strong would incorrectly treat a vague, general claim as equal to a well-founded rights-based argument.
Saying either 1 or 2 is strong suggests that both are individually strong but mutually exclusive, which is not the case here; only Argument 2 meets the criteria.
Claiming that neither is strong ignores the clear legal and ethical weight behind Argument 2.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners often mistake emotional or moralistic statements for strong reasoning. In exams, you must look beyond emotional tone to see whether the argument gives a clear, practical and justifiable reason. Appeals to fundamental rights and legal principles almost always carry strong weight when the proposed policy is an outright ban.

Final Answer:
Only Argument 2 is strong. Therefore the correct option is Only argument 2 is strong.