In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and decide which of the given arguments, if any, is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should speed breakers on roads be banned completely? Argument I: Yes, because data show that the number of accidents actually increases after putting speed breakers at certain locations. Argument II: No, because speed breakers teach fast drivers a lesson.

Introduction / Context:
This question looks at road safety infrastructure, specifically speed breakers. They are usually installed to slow traffic and reduce accidents. The problem asks whether they should be banned and offers two arguments. A strong argument is one that uses evidence or clear reasoning about safety and traffic flow. A weak argument is usually emotional, vague, or does not directly address safety outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The statement proposes banning speed breakers.
• Argument I says yes, because accident data show that accidents increase after installing speed breakers.
• Argument II says no, because speed breakers teach fast drivers a lesson.
• We assume that real accident statistics, if accurate, are important for policy decisions.

Concept / Approach:
To judge argument strength, we must see whether each argument focuses on the key aim of road design: improving safety and traffic efficiency. Argument I introduces numerical evidence that speed breakers, at least in some locations, may be causing more accidents rather than fewer. That is directly relevant to the question of banning them. Argument II, however, only states that speed breakers teach drivers a lesson, without explaining whether this actually reduces accidents or whether it causes other harms, such as sudden braking, damage, or loss of control. In reasoning questions, evidence based arguments focused on the impact of the policy are considered strong, while purely moralistic or vague statements are considered weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Argument I carefully. It mentions that the number of accidents increases after speed breakers are put in place.Step 2: If this data is true, speed breakers at those locations are not serving their main purpose and may even be dangerous.Step 3: This directly supports the idea of banning at least some speed breakers or replacing them with safer alternatives, so Argument I is strong.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says speed breakers teach fast drivers a lesson, but does not link this lesson to lower accident rates or safer behaviour.Step 5: Without clear evidence of safety benefit, simply teaching a lesson is not a strong justification for keeping an obstacle that may itself cause accidents, so Argument II is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
In policy making, accident statistics and research are heavily relied upon. An argument using such data is naturally strong in this context.In contrast, arguments that rely mainly on punishment or teaching a lesson without showing safety results will not convince traffic planners.Hence only Argument I qualifies as a strong argument.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because Argument II does not present measurable benefits, only a vague statement about drivers learning.Option C is wrong because the arguments differ greatly in their strength and cannot both be considered strong.Option D is wrong because one argument, namely Argument I, clearly uses relevant data and is strong.

Common Pitfalls:
It is easy to be influenced by the emotional satisfaction of teaching fast drivers a lesson and to forget that the real goal is safety.Another mistake is to ignore the phrase data shows, which in exam questions usually signals a strong argument based on evidence.

Final Answer:
Therefore only the first argument, based on accident data, is strong, so the correct answer is if only argument I is strong.