Statement: Should taxes on colour television be further increased? Arguments:…

In statement-and-argument reasoning, an argument is judged "strong" only when it is directly relevant to the issue raised in the statement, addresses a real and significant aspect of the matter, and rests on a verifiable, policy-relevant rationale -- not on an unsubstantiated generalisation, or on a fact about who is affected rather than on whether the action itself is justified.

Argument I ("taxes should rise because colour TVs are a luxury item that only the rich buy") asserts a claim about buyer identity without establishing any fiscal or economic rationale -- such as revenue need, cost of production, or market elasticity -- for raising the tax. Argument II ("the poor buy them too") merely disputes this buyer-identity claim; it does not itself provide grounds for keeping the tax unchanged. Both arguments centre on who buys colour televisions rather than on why the tax increase is or is not warranted, so neither meets the bar for a strong argument.

• "Only argument I is strong" fails because argument I's justification is an unverified generalisation about buyers, not an economic rationale for the tax.

• "Only argument II is strong" fails for the identical reason: it is an unverified claim about buyers, not a rationale addressing the tax question.

• "Either I or II is strong" fails because it assumes one of the two clears the bar, but both share the same structural flaw.

Since both arguments substitute a claim about the buyer's economic class for a substantive reason connected to the tax policy itself, neither argument is strong.