Question: Should we avoid the overuse of air conditioners? Arguments: I. Yes, overuse of air conditioners weakens the human system. II. No, the comfort provided by air conditioners cannot be sacrificed. Decide which of the given arguments is strong.

Introduction / Context:
This is a statement and argument type question. We are asked whether overuse of air conditioners should be avoided, and two arguments are presented, one in favour and one against. Our task is to judge which argument is strong in the context of public health and reasonable decision making. Strong arguments are those that are logical, relevant, and address the core issue.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Question: Should we avoid overuse of air conditioners?
• Argument I: Yes, overuse of air conditioners weakens the human system.
• Argument II: No, the comfort provided by air conditioners cannot be sacrificed.

Concept / Approach:
For such questions, we evaluate each argument based on logic and relevance. Argument I is about health, claiming that overuse harms or weakens the human body. Argument II focuses on comfort alone. A strong argument usually considers long term impacts such as health, safety, or economy, rather than just convenience. We also assume the given health effect in argument I is correct, as per the instructions in such reasoning questions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument I. Argument I says that overuse of air conditioners weakens the human system. If this is true, then overuse poses a health risk. Protecting health is an important objective for individuals and society. If a practice weakens the body or makes people more prone to illness, it is reasonable to suggest that it should be avoided or at least controlled. Therefore argument I directly addresses the core issue and presents a serious consequence of overuse. It is a strong argument. Step 2: Evaluate argument II. Argument II claims that we should not avoid overuse because the comfort provided by air conditioners cannot be sacrificed. This argument gives high priority to comfort, but completely ignores any negative effects, such as impact on health, energy consumption, or environment. Comfort is desirable, but it is not a decisive reason when health risks are involved. A more balanced argument would weigh comfort against harm, which this argument does not do. Thus argument II is weak, since it is one sided and does not deal with the core concern of overuse.

Verification / Alternative check:
In reasoning questions, if one argument is about serious outcomes like health and the other is merely about convenience, the health based argument is usually stronger. Here, argument I suggests a harmful effect of overuse, which is precisely what the question is about. Argument II in effect says that comfort is more important than health or any other cost, which is not a strong or balanced position for a policy decision.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option b (both arguments strong) is wrong because argument II does not provide a sound reason for allowing overuse.
• Option c (only II strong) is clearly inconsistent with the reasoning above.
• Option d (neither) fails to recognise the strength of a health based argument.
• Option e (either I or II) is not appropriate, as the arguments are not equally strong or interchangeable.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes treat any argument that favours comfort as strong without considering long term consequences. Remember that in such questions, issues related to health, safety and environment are usually given more weight than immediate convenience, unless the convenience is linked to a deeper necessity such as survival or critical functioning.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong, so option a is correct.