Statement–Argument — Should robots replace astronauts in space missions? Arguments: I. Yes. It saves human lives by avoiding extreme-risk crewed missions. II. No. It will make space missions more expensive.

Introduction / Context:
Mission design weighs scientific goals, risk, cost, and capability. The proposition is robot substitution for human astronauts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Robotic missions avoid life-support, crew safety risks, and many human-rating costs.
• Argument II asserts higher expense for robots without justification.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I directly addresses the foremost ethical/policy concern: preservation of life under extreme hazard. This is a compelling, mission-relevant reason. Argument II lacks basis; many robotic probes are substantially cheaper than human-rated missions for comparable objectives.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: risk elimination and logistical simplification are central benefits.2) II is weak: it contradicts widely observed cost structures and fails to present mechanism.3) Therefore, only I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Historically, uncrewed missions accomplish many objectives at far lower cost and risk than crewed missions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/either/neither/both” misrate the relative merits.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring differences between human-rating requirements and robotic mission profiles.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.