Statement–Argument — Should restrictions on blood donation by rickshaw-pullers and prisoners be removed? Arguments: I. Yes. Current restrictions deny many people the chance to donate blood, even to their own relatives during emergencies, reducing life-saving supply. II. No. Blood donation must ensure safety; if donor eligibility is questionable due to higher risk of unsuitable blood, restrictions are justified.

Introduction / Context:
Donor eligibility rules balance supply adequacy with transfusion safety. Some occupations or custodial statuses may correlate with risk factors, but categorical bans can be overly broad.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Blood safety requires screening (history, tests) and risk-based deferrals.
• Emergency needs highlight the importance of sufficient donor pools.
• Fairness suggests criteria should be medically grounded, not stigma-based.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument can arise from either side: one stresses access (supply), the other stresses safety (risk management). Where both considerations are legitimate, “either I or II is strong” is appropriate.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I: Removing blanket restrictions increases potential donors, potentially saving lives—relevant and reasonable.2) Argument II: If medical risk is higher, targeted restrictions may be warranted for safety—also reasonable when evidence-based.3) Because both speak to valid goals (supply vs. safety), each can be strong depending on evidence/design; hence “either”.

Verification / Alternative check:
Modern policy often replaces blanket bans with individual risk assessments and testing—integrating both concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the other valid goal; “Both” implies simultaneous acceptance without resolving practical conflict; “Neither” dismisses two legitimate concerns.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating social bias with medical risk; ignoring that good screening can reconcile aims.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.