Statement–Argument — Should strict action be taken against people who use ancient rocks/heritage formations for advertisements? Arguments: I. No. It is the cheapest and most cost-effective advertising medium and should not be banned. II. Yes. Heritage sites must be conserved; advertising defaces and degrades irreplaceable cultural assets.

Introduction / Context:
Conservation ethics prioritise protecting cultural and natural heritage over commercial exploitation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ancient rocks/heritage features are finite public goods.
• Defacement causes lasting damage and negative externalities.
• Alternative ad media exist without heritage harm.

Concept / Approach:
Argument strength rests on public-interest conservation versus private cost minimisation.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Appeals only to cheapness; cost alone cannot justify damaging shared heritage—weak.2) II: Protects irreplaceable assets and respects intergenerational equity—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Common statutes penalise defacement/graffiti on protected sites.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They elevate private cost savings over public heritage.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring negative externalities and cultural loss.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.