Statement–Argument — Should the minimum age (25 years) for entry to bars and pubs be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. By 18–20 years, citizens vote and can distinguish right from wrong; denying entry is paternalistic. II. No. Social maturity and economic independence usually accrue later; lowering the age risks harm via premature exposure and poor decisions.

Introduction / Context:
The policy balances adult autonomy against public-health and safety considerations (alcohol misuse, late-night hazards).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Age thresholds vary across activities (voting, driving, alcohol).
• Harm-reduction tools (ID checks, timings) can mitigate risks.
• Different jurisdictions calibrate thresholds differently.

Concept / Approach:
Both autonomy (I) and risk mitigation (II) are legitimate policy bases. Where both are reasonable, the correct evaluation is “either I or II is strong.”

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Emphasises legal adulthood and capacity—relevant.2) II: Emphasises developmental and safety concerns—also relevant.3) Since both are persuasive yet conflicting value choices, either can be strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative law shows differing age limits, indicating both rationales are used.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II/Both/Neither” misrepresent the policy trade-off structure.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating the threshold as purely moral rather than public-health policy.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.