Statement–Argument (Media & Social Harmony): Statement: Should communal violence be shown on television? Arguments: I) Yes, confronting the “devil within” helps society exorcise it. II) No, telecast of such content can inflame tensions in real life. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Broadcast policy must weigh public interest against risk of incitement. A strong argument identifies concrete social impacts and necessity standards for restrictions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Offers a philosophical thesis (catharsis) with no operational guardrails.
• Argument II: Points to real-world risk of escalation, imitation, and communal polarisation due to live/graphic coverage.

Concept / Approach:
In content policy, harm prevention is a recognised basis for limits (with proportional safeguards). Argument II is specific about risk; Argument I is abstract and does not show that broadcast is necessary for reform.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Lacks mechanism and ignores alternative educational formats.Test II: Identifies foreseeable harm; aligns with time-place-manner restrictions.

Verification / Alternative check:
Delayed, contextualised reporting or de-sensitised coverage can inform without inflaming—supporting II’s caution.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/neither” misclassifies relative strength; II is the robust policy argument.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming visibility alone heals division; ignoring copycat/retaliation dynamics.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.