Statement–Argument (Special Treatment for the Prestigious): Statement: Should prestigious people who commit crimes receive special treatment? Arguments: I) Yes, prestigious people do not commit crimes intentionally. II) No, everybody is equal before the law; special treatment is improper. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Rule of law requires equal treatment; status-based exemptions undermine justice and deterrence.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Asserts lack of intent due to prestige—unsupported and contrary to legal principles.
• Argument II: Reaffirms equality before law—central to a fair justice system.

Concept / Approach:
Only argument II meets the criterion of a strong argument by appealing to a foundational legal principle applicable to the decision.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Status ≠ innocence; mens rea and evidence determine intent ⇒ weak.Test II: Equal application of law ensures legitimacy ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Special treatment erodes trust and encourages impunity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either/both/neither” misclassify; only II is defensible.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating fame with credibility.

Final Answer:
if only Argument II is strong.