Statement–Argument — Is paying ransom or acceding to kidnappers’ conditions for political figures a proper course of action? Arguments: I) Yes; the victims must be saved at all costs. II) No; paying ransom encourages kidnappers to persist and escalate. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Ransom policy weighs immediate rescue against long-run deterrence. Strong arguments must consider incentive effects on future crime.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Kidnapping markets respond to expected rewards.
• States can pursue rescue via intelligence and negotiation without ransom.
• “At all costs” is an absolute that can create moral hazard.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is weak: unlimited willingness to pay increases expected payoff, inviting more crimes. Argument II is strong: it highlights the perverse incentive of paying, a central policy concern.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many governments follow “no-concessions” policies precisely to reduce incentives.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/Neither” misclassify the incentive logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Focusing solely on immediate outcome without considering repeated games.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.