Which of the following statements about common law conspiracy is true?

The concept of common law conspiracy indeed requires that two or more persons agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose, and this agreement must be accompanied by the intent to achieve that goal. This reflects the fundamental nature of conspiracy: it is the collaboration or agreement between multiple parties to engage in conduct that is unlawful. The intent aspect is crucial; it ensures that the parties are not merely discussing a hypothetical situation but are committed to taking steps towards realizing their unlawful objective.

In contrast, the requirement of an overt act is more associated with modern interpretations of conspiracy law, particularly in statutes rather than common law. Many jurisdictions have adapted the definition to include this requirement to demonstrate that the conspiracy is not merely a theoretical agreement.

Only requiring one person is incompatible with the very definition of conspiracy, which inherently involves more than one individual coordinating to carry out an illegal act. Likewise, failing to require intent would undermine the very premise of conspiracy; if participants aren't intent on furthering the unlawful purpose, it diminishes the culpability and accountability that conspiracy is designed to address. Thus, the necessity of both agreement and intent among two or more people truly encapsulates the essence of common law conspiracy.