Statement-Argument:- Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of…

Concept: In a Statement–Argument question, an argument is judged “strong” only if it is directly relevant to the statement, points to a real and significant consequence or principle (not a superficial, hypothetical, or purely assumption-based point), and would genuinely sway a reasonable person’s judgement on the issue. Strength is assessed independently for each argument — both a supporting and an opposing argument can be strong at the same time if each rests on its own weighty consideration.

Application: Argument I says a cap would make elections more meaningful because voters could weigh a smaller, more manageable set of candidates — this is a genuine, significant point about the quality of voter decision-making, so it is strong. Argument II says any eligible citizen has a democratic right to contest without arbitrary restriction — this rests on a genuine constitutional/democratic principle, not a superficial claim, so it is strong as well. Since both rest on real, significant considerations rather than assumptions, both qualify as strong.

Cross-check (why not the other options):

• “Only argument I is strong” would need argument II to fail the strength test, but the eligibility-based right to contest is a substantive democratic principle, not a superficial point — so II cannot be dismissed.

• “Only argument II is strong” would need argument I to fail the strength test, but the case for a more considered voter judgement is a genuine practical concern, not a superficial one — so I cannot be dismissed either.

• “Either I or II is strong” treats the two arguments as mutually exclusive, but they address separate facets of the issue (practical voter decision-making versus a democratic right) with no logical reason only one can hold at once.

So both arguments hold independently, and the strength test is satisfied by each.