Statement: Should all the unauthorized structures in the city be demolished?…

In Statement-Argument reasoning, an argument is judged 'strong' only when it is directly relevant to the question asked, is based on a fact or an established practical consideration (not a mere possibility or emotional appeal), and addresses the substance of the decision itself, not just a side consequence for one affected group. An argument is 'weak' when it raises a valid-sounding point that nonetheless fails one of these tests, most commonly relevance to the actual issue being decided.

Applying this to the demolition question: Argument I only points to where displaced residents would go, a genuine human concern, but one that does not address whether demolishing unauthorized structures is the right policy; it is a consequence for the individuals involved, not a reason bearing on the legality or fairness of the action itself. Argument II ties directly to the policy's purpose: demolition sends a clear deterrent signal, discourages future unauthorized construction, and reduces the resulting strain on city infrastructure, a directly relevant, factual, forward-looking consideration.

• Only argument I is strong - fails because Argument I's point stops at a side effect for residents, without engaging whether demolition should or should not happen as policy.

• Either I or II is strong - treats the pair as interchangeable, when each argument must be tested individually against the relevance and factual-grounding criteria.

• Neither I nor II is strong - dismisses the pair wholesale, overlooking that one of the two clearly satisfies the strength criteria when tested on its own.

So, only argument II is strong.