Statement: Should teenagers be denied access to the internet altogether? Arguments: I. Yes. Many children, especially teenagers, are often found accessing pornographic content online. II. No. Denying internet access would also deny them access to a vast amount of useful information; instead their access should be supervised and controlled.

Introduction / Context:
This question examines how to evaluate arguments about restricting teenagers’ access to the internet. In modern life the internet is both a source of risk and a rich source of information. A strong argument must show balanced thinking, focus on the core issue (whether access should be denied), and be realistic and practical rather than extreme or vague.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should teenagers be denied access to the internet?
Argument I: Yes. Many children, especially teenagers, are found accessing pornographic content online.
Argument II: No. Denying access to the internet would mean denying access to a lot of useful information; instead the access may be controlled.

Concept / Approach:
We judge each argument on relevance, logic and practicality. Strong arguments in such questions are usually balanced and avoid extreme all-or-nothing measures when better alternatives exist. The fact that misuse occurs is important, but we must see whether a complete ban is the only or best solution suggested by the argument.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Consider Argument I: It highlights a genuine concern that many teenagers might access harmful or pornographic content. However, it immediately jumps from the existence of misuse to the conclusion that a total denial of internet access is justified. It does not explore more balanced alternatives such as parental control tools, content filters, education about safe browsing or supervised access. Because it proposes an extreme solution without considering more practical measures, Argument I is not considered a strong argument in the exam sense. Consider Argument II: It points out that the internet also provides a lot of useful information and learning opportunities for teenagers. It further suggests a middle path: do not deny access but control and supervise it. This is a realistic and policy-relevant approach because it recognises both the benefits and risks of internet use. Therefore, Argument II is a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
From a reasoning perspective, authorities and parents rarely opt for complete denial of technology when control and education are possible. Argument II clearly mirrors this real-world reasoning. Argument I, although based on a real problem, overgeneralises “most teenagers” and supports a harsh solution, which exam patterns typically treat as weak or one-sided.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument I is strong ignores the overreaction and failure to consider alternatives.
Claiming that both arguments are strong suggests that an extreme ban and a balanced control approach are equally good, which is not logically consistent in this context.
Saying neither argument is strong ignores the well-reasoned and practical nature of Argument II.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to equate “serious problem mentioned” with “strong argument”. Simply pointing to a problem is not enough; the solution proposed must also be reasonable. Another pitfall is to vote for any argument that appears strict or moralistic, even when it is impractical. In exam logic, moderation and feasibility usually indicate stronger arguments.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong. Hence the correct option is If only argument II is strong.