Statement–Argument — Should all practicing doctors be brought under Government control, paid by the State, and required to treat patients free of cost? Arguments: I. No. Such blanket control would be undemocratic and heavy-handed. II. Yes. Despite challenges, central oversight could curtail unethical practices and improve equity of access.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal shifts the entire private practice domain into Government control. We must judge the strength of the reasons, not enact policy. An argument is strong if it directly and substantially connects to the policy’s goals and consequences.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Goal: ethical practice and equitable access.
• I labels the idea “undemocratic” without detailing how; II claims oversight would reduce unethical practices and improve access.

Concept / Approach:
Normative claims need grounding. Merely calling a policy “undemocratic” is vague unless tied to rights, feasibility, or institutional harm. By contrast, a quality/access rationale is centrally relevant, even if implementation is hard.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I lacks specificity—no mechanism or principle is shown beyond a label. Weak.2) Argument II links oversight to curbing malpractice and widening access, which is germane to the proposal’s intent. Strong.3) Therefore, only II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
A stronger “No” could cite risks like reduced innovation, capacity strains, or bureaucratic bottlenecks with evidence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” is unsupported; “either/neither” misclassify II’s clear relevance.

Common Pitfalls:
Accepting vague labels as decisive reasons.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.