Statement–Argument (Criminal Justice): Statement: Should the sole testimony of a rape victim be considered sufficient to prove the accused's guilt? Arguments: I) Yes, rape is a heinous offence and must be dealt with severely. II) No, relying on a single testimony can increase the risk of convicting innocent persons due to error, bias, or lack of corroboration. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
This item evaluates how to judge “strong” arguments in Statement–Argument questions. A strong argument is relevant, fact-based or principle-based, and directly addresses the feasibility, risks, or consequences of the proposal. Emotional intensity alone does not make an argument strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Proposal: Treat the sole testimony of a rape victim as sufficient to prove guilt.
• Argument I: Appeals to the gravity of rape (a heinous offence).
• Argument II: Warns of the increased risk of wrongful convictions if a single statement must suffice.

Concept / Approach:
In critical reasoning, strong arguments must connect to due process, reliability of evidence, safeguards against error, and implementability. Severity of a crime may justify prioritising speed and support for victims but does not, by itself, justify lowering evidentiary thresholds. The second argument directly addresses evidentiary reliability and judicial outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify relevance: Argument I states a value judgment about the offence; it does not evaluate the evidentiary rule’s reliability or fairness.Assess sufficiency: The question is about whether “sole testimony” is enough. This hinges on error rates, corroboration, and procedural safeguards, not on the moral gravity per se.Argument II highlights the real risk of Type I errors (convicting innocents) and is therefore policy-relevant and practical.

Verification / Alternative check:
Robust systems typically balance victim-centric processes (speedy trial, witness protection) with safeguards (corroboration where feasible, scrutiny of credibility, cross-examination). An automatic rule that a single testimony is “sufficient” disregards that balancing and can create systemic error risk—exactly the concern raised by Argument II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Argument I: Appeals to emotion/severity without showing that the rule improves truth-finding; hence weak.
• “Either” or “Neither”: II is clearly the stronger, targeted argument; I is not comparably strong.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating moral outrage with policy adequacy; confusing tough-on-crime rhetoric with due-process safeguards.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.