Statement–Argument — Should scientists be allowed to pursue human cloning? Arguments: I) Yes; cloning technologies may fight disease and help childless couples have a baby. II) No; high malformation rates in animal cloning and ethical concerns about “playing with nature” make it unacceptable. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Human cloning raises profound ethical, social, and biosafety questions. Strong arguments in this arena typically invoke consequentialist (benefit/harm) reasoning and deontological (dignity/natural-order) concerns. The test is whether each side independently presents a policy-relevant, defensible rationale.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Therapeutic applications (e.g., tissue lines) differ from reproductive cloning; public debates often conflate them.
• Animal cloning has shown developmental abnormalities and low success rates.
• Infertility imposes real psychological and social burdens on families.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong in principle: potential medical breakthroughs and reproductive help are compelling interests. Argument II is also strong: safety evidence (malformations) and ethical limits warrant precaution. Because both sides offer substantial, independent considerations, either can be judged strong depending on the ethical framework and risk tolerance adopted.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions permit tightly regulated therapeutic research while prohibiting reproductive cloning, reflecting the dual strength of both arguments.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the other weighty dimension; “Neither” denies the stakes on both sides.

Common Pitfalls:
Failing to distinguish therapeutic from reproductive cloning; policy can be differentiated.

Final Answer:
If either I or II is strong.