Critical reasoning – Legalization of mercy death (euthanasia) Statement: Should those suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire? Arguments: I. No. Allowing this goes against basic tenets of humanity. II. Yes. Patients in terrible suffering with no chance of recovery should be liberated from pain through mercy death. III. No. Mercy death is still killing, and killing can never be legalized.

Introduction / Context:
Euthanasia debates pit autonomy and compassion against sanctity-of-life and legal prohibitions on killing. Strong arguments here reflect ethical principles or compassionate care directly relevant to policy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I emphasizes the sanctity-of-life/humanity principle.
• II highlights unbearable suffering with no prospect of recovery, arguing for compassionate release.
• III claims killing can never be legalized in any form.

Concept / Approach:
In structured reasoning, I and II capture the two principal, legitimate poles: deontological objections and compassionate autonomy. III is an absolute restatement that disallows even carefully regulated exceptions; it adds little beyond I and ignores palliative intent distinctions made in some frameworks.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I – Strong: Meaningfully asserts a core ethical boundary many societies adopt.II – Strong: Addresses extreme cases where continued life equals continuous suffering with no recovery; policy relevance is clear.III – Weaker: It is an absolute statement that forecloses nuanced, regulated approaches; it does not advance reasoning beyond I.

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy design often seeks strict safeguards; the clash between I and II captures the real decision space.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None / Only II & III / Only I & III / All: Each misclassifies the relative strength and redundancy.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating all end-of-life decisions with indiscriminate killing; ignoring the role of medical prognosis and consent.

Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong