Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments…

Concept:

In statement–argument questions, an argument is 'strong' when it is directly relevant to the statement and rests on a stated fact, an established policy, or a generally accepted principle. An argument is 'weak' when it rests on a personal assumption, a supposition about someone's motive or state of mind, or is too general or indirect to have a real bearing on the issue.

Application:

Argument I claims prestigious people should get special treatment because they 'do not commit crime intentionally.' This is a claim about a person's intent, which cannot be objectively verified case by case — it is an assumption about state of mind, not a stated fact or principle, so it fails the test for strength. Argument II opposes special treatment on the ground that 'everybody is equal before the law' — this invokes the settled constitutional principle of equality before law, a general rule that applies to every person regardless of status. Because it is grounded in an established, directly relevant principle rather than a supposition, it satisfies the test for a strong argument.

Cross-check (why the other options fail):

• “Only argument I is strong” treats an unproven assumption about intent as sufficient grounding, which the strength test rejects.

• “Either I or II is strong” hedges by treating the pair as interchangeable, but only one of the two rests on a verifiable general principle — the pair is not interchangeable.

• “Neither I nor II is strong” dismisses both, overlooking that one argument does rest on an established, directly relevant principle.

Hence, only Argument II is strong.