Arguments evaluation (ransom policy for kidnapped political figures): Is paying ransom or agreeing to kidnappers' conditions an appropriate course of action? Assess—(I) Yes: victims must be saved at all cost; (II) No: such concessions encourage further kidnappings—focusing on absolutism vs. deterrence and long-run consequences.

Given data

• Dilemma: Whether to concede to kidnappers to save victims.
• Argument I: Save victims at all cost (absolute position).
• Argument II: Paying/agreeing incentivises more kidnappings (negative externality).

Concept/ApproachPolicy must weigh immediate lives against future risks. Absolute formulations ('at all cost') are weak because they ignore cascading harm; deterrence logic is directly relevant.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is absolutist and neglects strategic consequences; hence weak.Step 2: II identifies the credible risk of moral hazard and copycat crimes; hence strong.

Verification/AlternativeStandard guidance is to avoid concessions while pursuing rescue/intelligence operations—supports II.

Common pitfalls

• Letting immediate emotion override long-term security considerations.

Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.