In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments I and II. Consider the statement true and decide which argument is strong. Statement: Should street lights be switched off after midnight? Argument I: No, statistics show that crime and accidents increase when street lights are switched off. Argument II: Yes, very few vehicles move after midnight and expensive electricity will be wasted if the lights remain on.

Introduction / Context:
This question addresses a public policy issue: whether street lights should be switched off after midnight. Argument I focuses on safety and crime, while Argument II emphasises saving electricity when traffic is low. Our aim is to decide which argument is strong, judging each on relevance and seriousness, not on personal preference.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should street lights be switched off after midnight?
Argument I: No, because statistics show that crime and accidents increase when lights are off.
Argument II: Yes, because there is little traffic after midnight and keeping lights on wastes expensive electricity.
Assume that both public safety and resource conservation are important considerations for authorities.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is one that:

Directly addresses the statement.
Uses realistic, significant effects (e.g., safety, economic costs).
Reflects a concern that decision-makers actually weigh in practice.

If two arguments independently satisfy these conditions but lead to different conclusions, both can be considered strong and the correct code is that both are strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It claims that crime and accidents increase when street lights are off. This is realistic; poor visibility can contribute to road accidents, and dark streets may provide cover for criminal activities. Public safety is a critical government responsibility, and statistics showing increased risk are a serious reason not to turn off lights. Hence, Argument I is a strong argument against switching off lights after midnight. Evaluate Argument II: It points out that very few vehicles move after midnight, so keeping all street lights on may waste expensive electricity. Energy conservation and cost-saving are also important policy objectives, especially where electricity is costly or in short supply. The argument directly links reduced usage (few vehicles) to potential savings, which is a legitimate consideration in favour of switching off or reducing lights. Therefore, Argument II is also a strong argument in support of switching off lights after midnight.

Verification / Alternative check:
In practice, many cities try to balance both concerns, for example by dimming lights, using motion sensors or switching off lights only in low-risk areas. This shows that both safety and power saving are taken seriously. Thus both arguments highlight major, realistic concerns: one about safety, the other about resource use. Both are strong, even though they suggest opposite decisions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only Argument I as strong ignores real power and cost constraints raised by Argument II.
Choosing only Argument II as strong dismisses the crucial issue of crime and accidents.
Claiming that neither argument is strong is clearly wrong because both relate directly to important outcomes.
Saying the strength cannot be evaluated is also incorrect; each argument is clear and based on realistic considerations.

Common Pitfalls:
Some students think that because safety is more important than cost, only the safety argument can be strong. However, in reasoning questions, an argument can be strong even if it is ultimately outweighed by another; strength is about relevance and seriousness, not about winning in a final policy decision. Recognising that both sides have valid points is essential here.

Final Answer:
Both Argument I and Argument II are strong. Therefore the correct choice is if both I and II are strong.