Statement–Argument — Should smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol by actors be completely banned in Indian movies? Arguments: I. Yes. A blanket ban will significantly reduce the trend among youth by removing glamorised cues. II. No. Such a ban interferes with the filmmaker’s creative freedom and artistic expression. III. No. Films often mirror society; when the story demands it, such depictions can be contextually necessary with suitable safeguards (classification, disclaimers).

Introduction / Context:
This question examines policy trade-offs between public health messaging and creative freedom in cinema. A proposal to completely ban on-screen smoking and drinking by actors is assessed through competing arguments about effectiveness, rights, and practical safeguards.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Movies can influence behaviour through role-modelling and repeated exposure.
• India already uses partial measures (age classification, health warnings, PSAs) rather than an absolute ban.
• A strong argument should link directly to policy goals (harm reduction) without creating disproportionate constraints on legitimate expression.

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate whether banning depiction (not the behaviour itself) is the least restrictive and effective way to protect youth. Arguments must show causal relevance, proportionality, and feasibility, or present a principled rights-based constraint.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I says a blanket ban will “significantly reduce” youth uptake. While intent is public health, evidence is mixed; real-world behaviours stem from many determinants (family, peers, advertising, availability). A ban may push content to other media or reduce authenticity, and less-restrictive alternatives exist. Hence, I is not clearly strong.2) Argument II defends creative freedom—an established policy consideration. Restrictions on depiction must be narrowly tailored; a total ban is overbroad. II is strong.3) Argument III highlights that films reflect society; contextually necessary scenes can be paired with mitigation (certification, disclaimers, placement restrictions). This is a pragmatic, proportionate approach. III is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rating systems, content advisories, and anti-tobacco disclaimers are standard tools balancing expression with health messaging—consistent with II and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“None” ignores II/III; “I and II” or “I and III” overstate I; “Only I” is the weakest fit.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming depiction equals endorsement; overlooking proportional, targeted interventions.

Final Answer:
II and III are strong.