Statement–Argument — Should frequent strikes called by teachers be banned? Arguments: I. Yes. Repeated strikes severely disrupt students’ learning and harm their interests. II. No. If teachers serve students well, they should not be deprived of a platform to express grievances.

Introduction / Context:
Education is a time-sensitive public service; prolonged disruptions can cause irrecoverable learning loss.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Strikes are a form of collective bargaining.
• Student welfare and instructional time are paramount.
• Alternative grievance mechanisms (arbitration, negotiations) exist.

Concept / Approach:
Argument strength lies in prioritising child welfare while recognising legitimate labour rights.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Directly ties frequent strikes to student harm—strong.2) II: Asserts a platform is necessary but does not justify “frequent” strikes or explain why less harmful mechanisms would not suffice—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems restrict strike frequency/duration in essential services while strengthening dispute-resolution channels.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge proportionality and the primacy of student interest.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating any limit on frequency with a ban on expression; the item asks about frequent strikes.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.