Statement–Argument — Should children be completely prevented from using the Internet? Arguments: I. No. The Internet is an educational medium that blends learning with engagement. II. Yes. Pornographic and harmful sites strongly affect children; surveys suggest many users are minors.

Introduction / Context:
Child online safety policy balances access to educational resources with protections against harmful content, relying on supervision, filters, and literacy rather than absolute bans.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Internet provides extensive curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities.
• Harmful content exists but can be mitigated via controls and guidance.
• “Completely prevent” is an extreme measure.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments are proportionate and recognise practical safeguards. Overbroad prohibitions that deny significant benefits are typically weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Emphasises educational value—clear, relevant, and widely evidenced—strong.2) II: Though concerns are real, “complete prevention” is disproportionate. Appropriate response is supervision, age-gating, and literacy, not total bans—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Common frameworks promote parental controls, safe-search, and digital citizenship rather than absolute prohibition.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge proportionality and the educational case.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating risk existence with justification for total bans.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.