Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments…

Concept: In a Statement-and-Argument item, a 'strong' argument directly engages the practical consequence of the question at hand and is grounded in a substantive concern; a 'weak' argument strays from that specific concern, rests on a broad generality, or is a mere assumption not tied to the practical stakes.

Application: Argument I says that persons with a criminal record 'cannot serve the cause of the people and country' - this ties directly to the practical consequence the statement is asking about: whether a criminal conviction undermines a candidate's capacity to genuinely represent and serve the public. That direct, substantive link makes Argument I a strong argument. Argument II says 'it is democracy - let the people decide whom to vote' - this appeals to a broad, general right to choose one's representative, without addressing the specific concern the statement raises about a conviction's bearing on fitness to serve. Because it doesn't engage that concrete stake, Argument II falls short of a strong argument; it is weak.

• Only argument II is strong - does not hold, since II rests on a general appeal to democratic choice rather than engaging the specific concern about fitness to serve.

• Either argument I or II is strong - does not hold, since 'either' fits only when the two arguments are close enough in nature to be indistinguishable in strength; here one is a concrete, issue-specific claim and the other a broad general appeal, so they aren't that interchangeable pair.

• Neither argument is strong - does not hold, since Argument I does meet the bar for a strong argument by tying directly to the practical stakes of the question.

Cross-check: This matches how expert bodies (the Supreme Court, Law Commission, and Election Commission) have flagged the practical risk of criminally-convicted candidates weakening democratic institutions and public trust - the same substantive concern Argument I raises - while a bare appeal to 'let the people decide' is treated as a general, non-empirical counter-point in the same debate, consistent with Argument II's weakness.

Answer: Only argument I is strong.