Statement–Argument — Do discussions lead to solutions of disputes? Arguments: I) Yes; weighing pros and cons in proper perspective leads to the right solution. II) No; no one is really convinced. Identify the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Dispute resolution often relies on dialogue, negotiation, and evidence-based deliberation. A strong argument should reflect process value or structural limitations rather than fatalistic claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Many formal mechanisms (mediation, arbitration, collective bargaining) center on discussion.
• Deliberation can reveal trade-offs and create mutual gains.
• Cynical statements about “no one convinced” are over-generalizations.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I connects discussion to its core function—systematically evaluating pros/cons to reach solutions—hence relevant and logically strong. Argument II’s blanket pessimism is not universally true and offers no reasoning beyond assertion.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Negotiated settlements, mediated agreements, and committee resolutions routinely rely on structured discussion—evidence that I tracks reality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Granting strength to II would accept a baseless universal claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating frustration with difficult talks as proof against discussion in general.

Final Answer:
if only Argument I is strong.