Critical reasoning — total ban on non-vegetarian food: Should non-vegetarian food be completely prohibited across the country, given the claim that it is expensive and beyond the means of most people, versus the counter-claim that bans are inappropriate in a democratic nation like ours?

Given data

• Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned?
• Argument I (Yes): It is expensive and beyond the means of most people.
• Argument II (No): Nothing should be banned in a democracy like ours.

Concept/Approach (policy arguments must be relevant, reasonable, and non-extreme)
A strong argument addresses the goal of the statement (a total prohibition), provides logically sufficient reasons, and avoids sweeping generalisations.

Step-by-Step evaluation
1) Assess Argument I: High price or affordability is not a logical basis for total prohibition. Many goods are expensive; that does not warrant banning them for everyone. Hence, Argument I is weak.2) Assess Argument II: The claim 'nothing should be banned' is an absolute overstatement. Even democracies ban harmful items (e.g., dangerous drugs); therefore, Argument II is also weak.

Verification/Alternative
A reasonable policy debate might consider taxation, labelling, or regulation—not absolute bans or blanket 'nothing should be banned' claims.

Common pitfalls
Do not mistake price (an access issue) for a ban rationale; avoid absolute principles that collapse under obvious exceptions.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II is strong.