Statement & Argument — Is murder better than committing suicide? Arguments: I. Yes, removing those responsible for one’s problems is better than sacrificing oneself. II. No, taking another’s life or one’s own can never be right; there is always a third course of action.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt contrasts two grave moral wrongs. A strong argument should rest on defensible ethical reasoning applicable in general, not on vigilante logic or personal vengeance.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Murder and suicide are both severe harms; legal and moral frameworks condemn them.
• Reasoning tests prefer principles that minimize harm and respect due process.

Concept / Approach:
Argument strength arises from universalizable reasons (rights, duties, alternatives). An argument endorsing killing “those responsible” is inadmissible; it bypasses due process and escalates harm.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Advocates murder as preferable. It relies on retribution by the aggrieved and ignores law and ethics. This is weak.Argument II: Rejects both harms and emphasizes alternative courses (seeking help, legal remedies). This aligns with ethical and legal norms. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Most moral theories (rights, utilitarian harm minimization, virtue ethics) do not justify murder or suicide as “better” solutions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” or “Only I” would wrongly validate vigilantism.

Common Pitfalls:
Accepting emotional retribution as a rational policy argument.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong.