Statement–Argument — Should TV channels be allowed to telecast soft-porn films? Arguments: I. Yes. It will satisfy youthful impulses and thereby reduce offences against women. II. No. It conflicts with social values and may harm children who use TV for entertainment and learning.

Introduction / Context:
Broadcast standards regulate adult content to protect minors and uphold community norms, while allowing adult choice via time bands, ratings, and access controls.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Television is a shared, easily accessible medium for households with children.
• Causality claims linking adult telecasts to reductions in offences require strong evidence.
• Policy tools include watershed timings, content ratings, and parental locks.

Concept / Approach:
Assess if the argument is evidence-based and aligned with core aims (child protection, community standards). Unsupported social-engineering claims are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I posits crime reduction via “satiation”. This is speculative and ethically dubious; there is no clear, reliable causal mechanism demonstrated here—weak.2) Argument II stresses harm to minors and social norms—recognised grounds in broadcast policy worldwide. It supports proportionate restrictions (e.g., adult-only windows, strong filters)—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Common regulatory practice focuses on protecting minors while permitting adult content under strict conditions—not open telecast.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Both/Neither” mis-evaluate the evidentiary basis and policy priorities.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing adult VOD access controls with broadcast TV norms; assuming exposure reduces crime.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.