Should the cutting of trees be completely banned in order to protect the environment? Arguments: I. Yes, because a total ban is necessary to restore ecological balance and protect forests. II. No, because a complete ban on cutting trees would badly harm timber based industries.

Introduction / Context:
This question addresses environmental policy and economic impact. The proposal is to ban cutting of trees altogether. One argument supports the ban to restore ecological balance, and the other opposes the ban due to harm to timber industries. You must decide which arguments are strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: There should be a complete ban on cutting trees.
• Argument I: Yes, a total ban is necessary to restore ecological balance and protect forests.
• Argument II: No, a total ban will seriously harm timber based industries.
• We assume that environmental protection and economic activity are both important policy considerations.

Concept / Approach:
In statement and argument questions, sometimes both arguments can be strong if they present valid but opposing viewpoints. A strong argument in favour of a ban may be based on ecological necessity, while a strong argument against may highlight serious economic damage. The task is not to choose a final policy but to identify which arguments are logically relevant and weighty.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider argument I. It directly links tree cutting with ecological balance. Deforestation leads to soil erosion, climate change and loss of biodiversity. Step 2: This argument is strong because environmental protection is a legitimate, long term national interest. Step 3: Now consider argument II. It points out that a complete ban will badly harm timber based industries, which provide employment and economic output. Step 4: This is also a realistic concern. Policy makers must consider livelihoods and industrial needs. Hence argument II is also strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine you are drafting a new forest policy. You would seriously consider both ecological protection and industrial impact. Total bans are rarely simple, and both sides must be weighed. This confirms that both arguments are strong.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options claiming only one argument is strong ignore that both raise significant and realistic points. The option that neither is strong is incorrect because both arguments are clearly relevant. The option that their merits cannot be compared is also wrong because they can be compared on their policy importance.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes believe there must always be exactly one strong argument. However, exam questions often deliberately give two opposing but strong arguments to test balanced judgement.

Final Answer:
Here, both arguments I and II are strong, so the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.