Statement–Argument — Should the government withdraw the order requiring police intimation when citizens host foreign visitors? Arguments: I) No; some foreign visitors have been involved in serious security threats (e.g., bombings, hijackings), and basic intimation aids risk management. II) Yes; the order can give police undue latitude to harass citizens. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Host-intimation rules aim to assist basic verification and rapid contact during emergencies. The policy question is whether security benefits outweigh civil-liberty risks and administrative frictions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• High-risk events have involved foreign nationals in some instances.
• Light-touch intimation (not onerous permits) can help risk screening.
• Abuse risks exist and should be checked by clear SOPs, time limits, and grievance channels.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it identifies a legitimate public-safety interest and a proportionate tool (intimation, not pre-approval). Argument II raises an important caution but does not argue for withdrawal; it argues for better safeguards. As framed, it is weaker for the binary “withdraw/retain” decision.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Many jurisdictions require basic information for foreign guests in hotels and rentals; analogous host notifications support rapid tracing.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either/Neither” misread II as decisive; “Only II” ignores security proportionality.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming the only remedy for misuse is repeal rather than procedural safeguards.

Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.