Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:This question contrasts security/land-use concerns with humanitarian imperatives in refugee policy. We evaluate which argument provides a principled, broadly applicable rationale.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Argument I is a generalized claim about land occupation; it neither addresses refugee protection nor proposes lawful integration/processing. Argument II aligns with humanitarian standards and recognizes the moral/legal dimension of forced return.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Weak. Overgeneralizes and ignores due process, asylum procedures, and human rights.Argument II: Strong. Emphasizes human grounds for not forcing return to danger; consistent with ethical governance.Verification / Alternative check:Practical policy involves screening, asylum adjudication, and international cooperation rather than blanket expulsion.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Letting broad fears override humanitarian and legal considerations.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments