Statement: Should the prestigious people who have committed a crime…

Concept: In Statement-Argument reasoning, an argument is judged strong only when it is directly relevant to the statement, grounded in an established fact, policy, or principle, and free of unverifiable assumptions or presumptions about intent or motive; an argument is weak (vague) when it rests on a presumption that cannot be objectively confirmed, over-generalises, or does not squarely address the statement.

Application: Argument I supports special treatment on the ground that prestigious people ‘do not commit crime intentionally.’ Intent behind a crime is subjective and cannot be verified merely from a person's social standing, so this argument rests on an unproven presumption — it is vague/weak. Argument II opposes special treatment by invoking ‘equality before the law’, the codified constitutional doctrine that every person, regardless of status, is subject to the same law. This is a factual, established principle directly on point, so Argument II is strong.

Why the other options do not fit:

• ‘Only argument I is strong’ fails because Argument I relies on an unverifiable assumption about intent, which does not meet the strong-argument test.

• ‘Either argument I or II is strong’ would apply only if the two arguments were mutually exclusive with no way to tell which one holds; here each argument can be independently and unambiguously tested against the strong/weak criteria.

• ‘Neither argument is strong’ fails because at least one of the two arguments does satisfy the criteria for a strong argument when tested independently.

Cross-check: Testing each argument independently against the relevance-plus-factual-grounding rule (not against each other) confirms exactly one of the two arguments meets the bar for ‘strong’, matching the keyed option.