Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Should mercy death be legalized, i.e., all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire? Arguments : I. No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death. III. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized.

The correct answer is: A. None is strong

Argument I is not strong because it is based on an appeal to emotion. The statement that “nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity” is an emotional appeal, not a logical argument. There is no evidence to support the claim that ending one’s life is “against the basic tenets of humanity.”

Argument II is not strong because it is based on a false dilemma. The statement that “patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death” implies that there are only two options: either patients undergo terrible suffering and die, or they are killed through mercy death. However, there are other options, such as providing patients with palliative care to ease their suffering.

Argument III is not strong because it is based on a circular argument. The statement that “even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized” is circular because it defines mercy death as a type of killing and then concludes that killing can never be legalized. This argument does not provide any evidence to support the claim that killing can never be legalized.

In conclusion, none of the arguments are strong.