Statement–Argument — Should adulteration in foodstuff be treated as a serious crime? Arguments: I) Yes; adulteration harms health and can even cause death. II) No; substances mixed with food are not really poisonous. Identify the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Food adulteration is a public-health and consumer-protection issue. Strong arguments should invoke health risk, safety standards, and deterrence, not unfounded claims about harmlessness.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Adulteration introduces non-standard, unsafe, or fraudulent substances into food.
• Public-health frameworks treat contamination risk as serious due to morbidity/mortality potential.
• Legal policy weighs prevention and deterrence heavily when risks are systemic.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I directly ties the policy (treat as serious crime) to the harm principle (health/dying risk). This is relevant and sufficient. Argument II asserts blanket non-poisonousness, which is factually questionable and ignores dose-dependent toxicity or chronic effects.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong “No” would need evidence that existing civil penalties suffice or that criminalization causes net harms; II provides neither.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” implies II is strong; it is not. “Neither” fails because I is strong. “Only II” contradicts risk reality.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring chronic toxicity, contamination chains, and consumer deception.

Final Answer:
if only Argument I is strong.