Critical reasoning — special treatment for prestigious people who unknowingly commit crimes: Should prestigious individuals who have unknowingly committed an offence receive special treatment, with one argument asserting their lack of intent and the other upholding the policy that all are equal before the law?

Given data

• Statement: Give special treatment to prestigious offenders acting unknowingly?
• Argument I (Yes): Prestigious people do not commit crimes intentionally.
• Argument II (No): Everyone is equal before the law.

Concept/Approach (rule of law)
A strong argument should align with legal principles. Status-based privileges undermine equality; intent, if relevant, is addressed by law uniformly, not via status.

Step 1: Assess Argument I
Assumes prestige implies lack of intent—an unsupported and biased claim; weak.

Step 2: Assess Argument II
Affirms equality before the law, a foundational legal norm; strong.

Final Answer
Only argument II is strong.