Statement: Should fishing be banned during the monsoon season? Arguments: I. Yes. Monsoon is the breeding season for many fish species, so a ban supports regeneration of stocks. II. No. A ban will enormously increase fish prices. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Closed seasons are standard conservation tools. A strong argument should link the policy to sustainability and long-term public benefit, not only to short-run price effects.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Monsoon coincides with spawning for many species.
• Overfishing during breeding reduces biomass and future catch.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is conservation-centric and promotes long-term yield stability—squarely in the public interest. Argument II identifies a predictable, temporary price effect, but price management can be addressed by imports, storage, or phased bans; higher prices alone do not invalidate conservation policy.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Directly advances sustainability, replenishment, and future livelihoods ⇒ strong.• II: Highlights a transitional cost but not a decisive reason to reject the ban ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many fisheries use seasonal bans with compensatory measures (alternative income programs, cold-chain buffers), preserving I’s merit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II elevate a manageable side effect over the core conservation rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Short-termism that sacrifices stock regeneration and long-run consumer welfare.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.