Environment vs industry — Should cutting of trees be banned altogether? Statement: Should cutting of trees be banned altogether? Arguments: I. Yes. It is very much necessary to restore ecological balance. II. No. A total ban would harm timber-based industries.

Introduction / Context:
This question weighs ecological sustainability against industrial interests in the face of an absolute policy: banning tree cutting altogether. We must decide which argument is intrinsically stronger at the level of public interest and long-term environmental stability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Deforestation threatens biodiversity, climate regulation, soil stability, and water cycles.
• An “altogether” ban is absolute; it targets practices that degrade forests.
• Industry concerns can be addressed via legal plantations, recycling, and alternatives.

Concept / Approach:
In argument evaluation, broad public goods (ecological balance) tend to carry decisive weight when the counterargument cites economic inconvenience without demonstrating net social benefit or alternatives.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy precedence often places ecosystem integrity above short-term industry disruption, especially under an “altogether” framing where the default is conservation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II strong: ignores overriding ecological imperatives.
• Either I or II: not equivalent in weight.
• Neither: false; I is strong.
• Both: II is not sufficiently compelling as framed.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating industrial impact with public interest without considering externalities and long-term ecological costs.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong