A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question. Question: Should the illiterates be debarred from casting their votes? Arguments:
I. Yes, they can be easily misguided.
II. No, it is their constitutional right.

This question involves ethical, moral, and constitutional considerations. Argument I: "Yes, they can be easily misguided." This argument suggests that illiterates should be debarred from voting because they can be easily influenced or misled due to their lack of education. While there may be concerns about misinformation or manipulation, it's also possible to argue that with proper education and awareness efforts, illiterate individuals can make informed choices. Argument II: "No, it is their constitutional right." This argument emphasizes the fundamental right to vote, regardless of literacy status. In many democratic societies, voting is considered a basic right of citizenship, and depriving someone of this right solely based on illiteracy could be seen as discriminatory or against democratic principles. Both arguments have valid points, but argument II, emphasizing the constitutional right to vote, carries more weight in the context of democratic principles and inclusivity. Illiteracy alone should not be a reason to strip someone of their right to participate in the democratic process. Therefore, option 2: "Only argument II is strong" is the most appropriate choice.