Statement: Should hunting be banned? Arguments: I. Yes. It is a clear environmental hazard leading to biodiversity loss. II. No. Hunters will be left without livelihood. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Hunting pressures wildlife populations and ecosystems. Policy prioritises conservation and ecological balance.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Conservation is a public good with irreversible losses if species decline.
• Livelihood transitions can be addressed by alternative programs.

Concept / Approach:
Check which argument aligns with core public interest and feasibility.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Directly cites environmental harm. Strong basis for prohibition or strict control.Argument II: Livelihood concerns are valid but can be addressed via support and reskilling; they do not justify continuing harmful activity. Weak as a determiner.

Verification / Alternative check:
Protected areas and anti poaching regimes exist precisely for such reasons.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II, either, both misclassify the strength; neither ignores the conservation imperative.

Common Pitfalls:
False choice between conservation and livelihoods; policy can mitigate transition costs.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong.