The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong’ arguments and which is/are ‘weak’ arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question.
Statement:
World’s largest beer maker Heineken NV, the majority partner of United Breweries with Vijay Mallya, is understood to have sought legal opinion over its right to appoint a chairman at the Indian company. Heineken and some of its advisers believe that the shareholder agreement between Mallya and the beer giant has become null and void after India’s Enforcement Directorate attached his shares as part of its legal action against the liquor baron.
Which among the following arguments support the above statement in the best possible manner?
Arguments:
I. UBL has stopped sharing confidential information with Mallya and has said that he is no longer privy to any strategic developments.
II. The board of UBL, India’s biggest beer company, had asked Mallya to either step down or appoint a nominee after the Securities and Exchange Board of India barred wilful defaulters from holding key board positions last year.
III. The company is functioning well and operations are in good shape but it is not good corporate governance to have an acting chairman for so long.

Options

A. None is strong.
B. Only I and II are strong.
C. Only III is strong
D. All except III and II are strong.