Statement: Should trial courts be allowed to record the evidence of witnesses living abroad via video conferencing? Arguments: I. Yes. It reduces unnecessary travel burden and logistical delays for witnesses. II. No. We should not change systems established by our forefathers. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Technology-enabled evidence aims to improve access to justice and timeliness. Strong arguments address efficiency, integrity, and due process; appeals to tradition are weak.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Witnesses abroad face cost/time barriers.
• Courts can authenticate identity and ensure procedural safeguards over video.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I directly connects the policy to reduced delays and hardship—legitimate judicial goals. Argument II is an appeal to tradition without addressing fairness or evidentiary reliability; it does not outweigh access gains.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strong—targets efficiency and participation.• II: Weak—does not identify a principled harm beyond “change is bad.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Safeguards (oath administration, identity verification, cross-examination) can be preserved, supporting I.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II mistakes tradition for a policy argument.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring that procedure evolves with technology while preserving fairness.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.