Statement–Argument — Should the officer in charge of every police station be transferred every two years? Arguments: I. No. It creates administrative hassles and causes inconvenience to officers and their families. II. Yes. Frequent transfers are an effective way to break nexus between officers and anti-social elements.

Introduction / Context:Public safety policies often weigh operational integrity against administrative convenience. The standard of a “strong” argument looks for public-interest reasoning directly tied to the objective, rather than ancillary inconvenience.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: Mandate biennial transfer of police station in-charges.
• Arg I (against): Administrative hassle and personal inconvenience.
• Arg II (for): Rotation disrupts entrenched local nexus with anti-social elements.

Concept / Approach:An argument is strong when it relates to core objectives (integrity, impartiality, crime control) and presents a plausible mechanism. Inconvenience, while real, usually does not override institutional integrity in such reasoning tests unless it translates into systemic harm.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate I: Hassle and family inconvenience are secondary impacts; they can be mitigated (planning, allowances). They do not refute the policy's core aim. Hence, I is weak.2) Evaluate II: The core risk addressed is capture and collusion. Periodic rotation is a recognized integrity control to reduce undue local influence. This is directly relevant and mechanism-based. Hence, II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Consider areas with prolonged tenures and reported local capture; rotation is a commonly cited remedy. Conversely, administrative hassles can be addressed without scrapping the policy.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Both strong” overstates the weight of inconvenience; “neither” undervalues the integrity rationale in II; “only I” misprioritizes convenience over public interest.

Common Pitfalls:Equating personal inconvenience with systemic policy failure; ignoring anti-corruption design principles.

Final Answer:If only Argument II is strong.