In this critical reasoning question, a statement is given followed by two arguments, I and II. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which of the arguments is a strong and logically relevant argument. Statement: Should zoos be closed down completely? Argument I: Yes, because imprisoning wild animals in cages is a moral crime. Argument II: No, because it is acceptable if some animals are kept in captivity purely for the sake of human entertainment.

Introduction / Context:
This question addresses an ethical and social issue about whether zoos should be closed down. Two arguments are offered, one in favour of closing zoos and one against. A strong argument in such questions is one that is relevant, non trivial, and based on serious ethical, social, or practical considerations, rather than casual or insensitive claims. You must decide which argument genuinely helps in making a policy decision about shutting zoos.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The core statement asks whether all zoos should be closed down.
• Argument I says yes, because imprisoning animals is a crime from a moral perspective.
• Argument II says no, because it is fine if some animals are kept in captivity for entertainment.
• We assume that ethical treatment of animals is an important factor in this decision.

Concept / Approach:
To evaluate strength, we consider whether an argument deals with the main ethical or practical issues. Argument I condemns captivity as a moral crime, directly challenging the basic idea of keeping animals in cages. This directly supports closing zoos and appeals to animal rights, which is a central concern in this debate. Argument II, however, dismisses animal welfare and simply asserts that entertainment justifies captivity, without discussing conservation, education, or protection, which would be stronger reasons sometimes used in favour of zoos. A reasoning test usually treats casual or insensitive justifications as weak, because they ignore important ethical dimensions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Argument I. It states that imprisoning animals is a crime, implying serious moral wrongdoing in running zoos.Step 2: Since the main question is whether zoos should be closed, an argument claiming that their core practice is morally wrong is highly relevant.Step 3: Argument I is framed in strong moral language and directly addresses the heart of the issue, so it is considered a strong argument.Step 4: Examine Argument II. It says that keeping animals in captivity for entertainment is fine, but offers no reasoning beyond this assertion.Step 5: This argument ignores animal rights, welfare, and possible suffering, and does not present a serious social benefit, so it is regarded as weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A stronger no argument would mention conservation, breeding endangered species, or educational value, which Argument II does not do.Argument I may be debated in real life, but within this question type it clearly raises a solid ethical objection to zoos and supports closure.Therefore, Argument I is strong and Argument II is weak.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because Argument II provides a shallow reason and does not seriously address the responsibilities of humans towards animals.Option C is wrong because the two arguments are not both strong; one is clearly weaker.Option D is wrong because at least one argument, Argument I, is strong and relevant.

Common Pitfalls:
One common mistake is to think any opinion stated strongly is a strong argument, even if it lacks reasoning.Another pitfall is to ignore ethical aspects in questions involving animals, health, or public safety, and focus only on entertainment or convenience.

Final Answer:
Thus only the first argument gives a serious and relevant reason about closing zoos, so the correct choice is if only argument I is strong.