Emmeline Pankhurst was an activist in the United Kingdom during the early 1900s. She was a leader of the suffrage movement that helped gain women the right to vote. In 1912, Pankhurst and several other suffragettes tried to burn down the Royal Theater in Dublin, Ireland, after the British prime minister had gone to a performance there. Over the next two years, suffragettes set fire to several buildings in the United Kingdom. Some people felt that Pankhurst's approval of the violence turned the public against the suffrage movement, but ultimately the UK Parliament granted all women the right to vote in 1928. Interpretation 1 — Pankhurst was justified in using violence because it kept the women's rights movement in the public eye. Interpretation 2 — Pankhurst should not have used violence because it turned people away from supporting the women's rights movement. Which statement best compares the two interpretations of Emmeline Pankhurst's actions?