Statement: Should state lotteries be stopped? Argument I: Yes, the government…

Concept: In a Statement-and-Arguments item, an argument counts as strong only when it is (a) directly tied to the specific decision the statement raises and (b) substantial in its own right - grounded in an established, widely-accepted value or in a real, weighty consequence of the decision. An argument that is superficial, only loosely related, or that seeks a benefit through an otherwise undesirable means is weak.

• Argument I - the government should not promote gambling habits: gambling is a recognised social ill, and it is a widely-accepted principle that the state should not actively encourage a harmful habit among its citizens. This objection speaks directly to the decision and rests on a genuine public-interest value, so it is strong.

• Argument II - the government will suffer a loss of revenue: this points only to a financial cost of stopping the lotteries. Earning revenue by promoting an undesirable activity is not a legitimate justification for continuing it - a desirable end pursued through an undesirable means does not make a strong argument, so this one is weak.

Cross-check: the contrast is between an objection anchored in an accepted social value (strong) and a bare revenue consideration drawn from an undesirable source (weak). Since exactly one of the two - the anti-gambling objection - carries substantial, decision-relevant weight, only Argument I is strong.