Step 1: Judge each argument with a checklist: is it directly relevant to the policy question, and does it give a specific, realistic reason rather than a vague general principle?
Step 2: Argument I - relevant, since passive smoking harm is directly tied to banning smoking in shared public places; realistic, since the health risk to non-smokers from passive smoke is well-established and significant. It passes both checks, so it is strong.
Step 3: Argument II - relevant on the surface (personal freedom), but it fails the "specific and realistic" check: it treats freedom as absolute and ignores that this freedom directly harms other people sharing the same public space. A general principle that overlooks the actual harm involved is a weak basis for policy.
Step 4: Only argument I clears the full checklist.
Correct option: (1) Only argument I is strong.