Should there be a total ban on trapping wild animals? Consider the following arguments and identify which one is strong: 1. Yes, because trappers are making a lot of money by catching wild animals. 2. No, because bans on hunting and trapping are usually not effective in practice.

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question belongs to the topic of statement and argument. You are given a proposal about placing a total ban on trapping wild animals and two short arguments, one in favour and one against. Your task is to judge which arguments are strong, that is, logically relevant and based on sound reasoning, and which are weak or emotional.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: There is a proposal to impose a total ban on trapping wild animals.
• Argument 1: Yes, a ban should be imposed because trappers are making a lot of money.
• Argument 2: No, a ban should not be imposed because bans on hunting and trapping are usually not effective.
• A strong argument should relate directly to the social objective, here animal welfare and environmental protection, and should not be merely emotional or vague.

Concept / Approach:
For statement and argument questions, we check each argument against three filters: relevance to the statement, logical connection with the objective, and general acceptability in real life. A strong argument supports or opposes the statement using reasonable, broad based considerations rather than narrow, self centred reasons.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine argument 1. It focuses only on the fact that trappers are making a lot of money. Earning money by itself is not illegal or immoral. The argument does not talk about animal cruelty, ecological balance, or conservation. Step 2: Because argument 1 ignores the real reasons why a ban might be considered, it is weak and more emotional than logical. Step 3: Examine argument 2. It says that bans are not effective. This is a general statement without evidence. Even if enforcement is difficult, that alone is not a strong reason to reject a protective law. Step 4: Argument 2 therefore also fails the test of a strong argument, because it does not offer a constructive alternative and is based on a sweeping assumption.

Verification / Alternative check:
A quick check is to imagine what a policy maker would consider. They would look at cruelty, biodiversity and law enforcement capacity. Neither argument provides a balanced policy view. So both are weak.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option "Only argument 1 is strong" is wrong because argument 1 is based only on the income of trappers, which is not the core concern. Option "Only argument 2 is strong" is wrong because simply saying bans are ineffective is vague. Option "Both arguments 1 and 2 are strong" is wrong because both fail the tests of relevance and depth. The option about insufficient data is wrong, since we can still judge the quality of both arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often think that as long as an argument is grammatically correct it is strong. However, strength depends on policy relevance and balanced reasoning, not on length or style. Another mistake is to accept any practical difficulty, like weak enforcement, as a reason to abandon a policy altogether.

Final Answer:
The correct evaluation is that neither argument 1 nor argument 2 is strong, so the correct option is the one that states this combination.