Statement & Argument — Should Party X be voted to power? Arguments: I. Yes, it is the only party capable of bringing stability. II. No, it cannot rule the country properly.

Introduction / Context:
Political judgment questions require arguments that are objective, specific, and evidence oriented. The statement asks whether Party X should be voted to power. We test each argument for specificity, exclusivity claims, and logical sufficiency.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• No data about stability metrics or comparison with other parties is provided.
• No operational definition of ruling properly is provided.
• Vague or sweeping assertions without substantiation are typically weak.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should present a concrete, policy-linked reason. An exclusivity claim like “only party” demands strong evidence or a unique capability. A negative claim like “cannot rule properly” must specify reasons (competence, track record, policy failures) to be persuasive.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I claims uniqueness in delivering stability but provides no basis or indicator. Without comparative evidence or defined stability metrics, it is an assertion, hence weak.2) Argument II asserts incapacity without any reference to parameters, examples, or evidence. As phrased, it is also weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
If I cited verifiable stability outcomes uniquely attributable to Party X, it might become strong. If II listed demonstrated failures or risks, it could be strong. As given, both lack substance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Neither argument independently meets the bar for strength; hence options asserting one or either is strong are incorrect.

Common Pitfalls:
Accepting broad political slogans as strong arguments without evidence.

Final Answer:
Neither Argument I nor II is strong.