Statement–Argument (Compulsory Voting): Statement: Should voting be compulsory for all adults? Arguments: I) Yes, outcomes would be more representative if everyone votes. II) No, compulsion removes the citizen’s right to abstain. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Compulsory voting trades off representativeness against negative liberty (the right not to choose). Both sides can advance strong normative and practical points.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Universal turnout reduces sampling bias from differential participation, plausibly improving representativeness.
• Argument II: Coercion undermines freedom to abstain as political expression (e.g., principled non-choice).

Concept / Approach:
Both arguments are policy-relevant and principle-grounded: I on outcome quality, II on liberty. Thus both are strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: More voters ⇒ closer to full electorate’s preferences.II: Liberty includes abstention; coercion raises rights and enforcement issues.

Verification / Alternative check:
Some systems balance by encouraging turnout via nudges rather than compulsion—showing both principles matter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only one side is not uniquely strong; “neither” ignores valid considerations on both sides.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating abstention with apathy; ignoring that non-participation can be expressive.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.