Critical reasoning — trapping wild animals: Should the nation impose a total ban on trapping wildlife, weighing the claim that trappers are earning a lot of money against the counter-claim that hunting or trapping bans do not work effectively?

Given data

• Statement: Total ban on trapping wild animals?
• Argument I (Yes): Trappers make a lot of money.
• Argument II (No): Bans on hunting/trapping are ineffective.

Concept/Approach (relevance to conservation objective)
A strong argument must align with the purpose (wildlife protection). Profit levels of trappers do not, by themselves, justify a ban; claiming 'bans don't work' without evidence is also inadequate.

Step-by-Step evaluation
1) Argument I: Earning money does not show ecological harm or ethical breach sufficient for a blanket prohibition; hence weak.2) Argument II: Purely asserting ineffectiveness (without proposing alternatives or evidence) does not defeat the regulatory goal; thus weak.

Verification/Alternative
Stronger arguments would cite biodiversity loss, cruelty concerns, enforcement design, or regulated sustainable use—none are provided here.

Common pitfalls
Confusing profit with illegitimacy; accepting blanket defeatism without considering improved enforcement.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II is strong.