In the question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and
II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument. 'Strong' arguments are those which are important and directly address the statement. 'Weak' arguments are those which are of minor importance and may not be directly related to the statement or may focus on some trivial aspect of the statement. Statement : Should governments mandate the complete transition from paper-based property land registries to an immutable, fully digital blockchain system? Arguments :
I. Yes, because a centralized blockchain land registry eliminates title fraud, reduces administrative transaction costs, and enables transparent verification of land ownership.
II. No, because digital-only property registries leave landowners vulnerable to systemic cyberattacks, software glitches, and digital exclusion in areas lacking high-speed internet access.

Argument I is strong: It addresses the policy statement from an administrative efficiency and fraud prevention perspective. It highlights substantial institutional benefits—eliminating title fraud, lowering transaction friction, and enhancing public auditability. In logical argumentation, points focused on governance, anti-fraud security, and cost efficiency are considered strong. Argument II is strong: It addresses the policy statement from a infrastructure resilience and equitable access perspective. It identifies critical systemic vulnerabilities—cybersecurity threats, system outages, and the risk of disenfranchising populations in digitally underserved regions. In formal logic, arguments emphasizing public interest, infrastructure security, and equitable access are considered strong. Conclusion: Both arguments present valid, substantial, and non-trivial justifications addressing two critical dimensions of the proposal (administrative transparency/anti-fraud vs. systemic security/digital inclusion). Therefore, both arguments are strong.