Statement–Argument (Aviation Safety): Statement: Should all MiG-21 fighter aircraft be banned due to frequent accidents? Arguments: I) Yes, the aircraft has become a “flying coffin.” II) No, most accidents are due to human error. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Decisions about grounding a fleet should rely on causal analysis (airworthiness, maintenance, pilot training, operations) rather than emotive labels. A strong argument must explain whether banning addresses the root cause of accidents.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Uses a pejorative tag (“flying coffin”) but offers no causal mechanism.
• Argument II: Attributes accidents mainly to human error—training, procedures, or supervision—implying solutions other than outright ban.

Concept / Approach:
For strength, relevance to causation is key. If the problem is primarily human factors, interventions should target training, SOPs, simulators, maintenance, and upgrades. An epithet without analysis is weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Does it diagnose cause or remedy? No; it is rhetoric.Test II: If human error dominates, focus on pilot proficiency, instrumentation, and oversight—not blanket ban—thus II is policy-relevant and stronger.

Verification / Alternative check:
If evidence showed design/airframe unfitness, a ban could be strong; but the stated premise emphasises human error, supporting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” or “neither” dilutes the causal relevance; I alone is not strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing emotive language with evidence; assuming a single lever (ban) solves multifactor safety issues.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.