Statement–Argument — Should cricket players found to have a nexus with bookies be punished with a life ban? Arguments: I. No. Imposing a life ban will discourage other players as well. II. Yes. Match-fixing scandals have shaken public trust; a stringent life ban can deter corruption, restore integrity, and protect the game’s spirit.

Introduction / Context:
Sports-governance questions test how sanctions influence behavior, fairness, and fan trust. Here, the proposal is a life ban for players linked to bookies (match-fixing/corruption). The core policy lens is deterrence and integrity rather than short-term sentiment.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fixing undermines competitive fairness, broadcaster value, sponsorships, and fan confidence.
• Life bans are the severest sanction available to address egregious integrity breaches.
• Argument I claims a chilling effect on uninvolved players; Argument II claims credible deterrence and restoration of trust.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must connect the proposed penalty to policy objectives: prevention, fairness, and systemic trust. In integrity offenses, certainty and severity of punishment, coupled with due process, are central deterrence levers. A vague claim of “discouraging others” does not show a causal policy harm.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate Argument I: It asserts that life bans could discourage other players. But clean players are not at risk if processes are transparent and evidence-based; the claim is speculative and peripheral to integrity goals. Weak.2) Evaluate Argument II: It directly addresses deterrence and reputational repair—key aims. Severe sanctions signal zero tolerance, reducing the expected gains from fixing.3) Policy alignment favors II as the materially relevant, outcome-focused rationale.

Verification / Alternative check:
Leagues often pair strict sanctions with due process (independent tribunals, appeals) and education programs—consistent with II’s direction while mitigating false positives.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” misreads sentiment as policy; “either/both” overstate I; “neither” ignores the clear integrity rationale in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing tough sanctions with “discouragement” of clean athletes; overlooking due process as a safeguard.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.