Statement–Argument — Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in the country? Arguments: I) Yes; it is expensive and beyond the means of most people. II) No; in a democracy nothing should be banned. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Total prohibition of a lawful food category requires overwhelmingly strong public-interest grounds (e.g., health, safety). Price or a blanket appeal to “democracy means no bans” are insufficient.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Affordability varies; price does not justify prohibition.
• Democracies sometimes ban harmful goods; democracy per se does not forbid bans.
• Religious/cultural pluralism complicates blanket bans.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is weak: expensive goods are not banned for price; access can be left to choice. Argument II is also weak: the premise is absolute and incorrect—democracies ban certain things when justified.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Reasonable regulation (hygiene, labeling, animal welfare) could be debated; total ban needs stronger grounds than provided.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option awarding strength to I or II misreads policy logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing cost or ideology with public-health evidence.

Final Answer:
if neither I nor II is strong.