A statement is followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong. Statement: From a tender age, children must be trained to do household chores. Arguments: I. Yes, doing chores from an early age will help them grow into responsible individuals who take ownership of their work. II. No, it is enough that they are sent to school; they will learn everything there.

Introduction / Context:
This problem evaluates arguments about whether children should be trained to do household chores from a young age. One argument claims this builds responsibility, while the other claims school learning is sufficient. The goal is to identify which argument is logically strong, based on realistic understanding of child development and education, not on personal preference alone.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Children should be trained from a tender age to do household chores.
Argument I: Yes, it will help them grow responsible for their work.
Argument II: No, sending them to school is enough because they learn everything there.
Assume that children spend time both at home and in school, and that learning in school focuses mainly on academics and some life skills.

Concept / Approach:
We must check for each argument:

Relevance to the statement about early chores.
Realism and practicality in the explanation.
Whether it addresses an important aspect of children's development.

An argument that recognises the complementary roles of home and school is generally stronger than one that assumes school alone covers all aspects of life.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It says that children who do chores will become more responsible. Household chores teach practical skills: organising tasks, following routines, and understanding that work has to be done for the family to function smoothly. Psychologically, being entrusted with small duties can build confidence, independence and accountability. Therefore, Argument I gives a concrete, realistic reason supporting the statement and is a strong argument. Evaluate Argument II: It claims that sending children to school is sufficient because they “learn everything there”. In reality, schools focus mostly on academic subjects and a limited set of life skills; they do not usually provide day-to-day household management practice. Many important life skills such as cooking basics, cleaning and managing personal belongings are typically learned at home. Thus, Argument II overstates what school can do and ignores the unique role of the home environment, making it a weak argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
Ask whether any educational expert would realistically say that school alone can fully replace home training in daily responsibilities. The answer is no; both environments contribute differently. So the view that “they will learn everything at school” is clearly exaggerated. On the other hand, the claim that chores build responsibility is widely supported by experience and research.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument II is strong ignores the unrealistic assumption it makes about school education.
Claiming both are strong equates a grounded developmental point with an exaggerated claim about schooling.
Saying neither is strong overlooks the solid, practical reasoning of Argument I.
The “either argument I or II” option is intended for questions where both arguments are individually strong but contradictory, which is not the case here.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes underestimate the value of non-academic learning at home and think school is enough for everything. In reasoning questions, you must check if an argument is absolute or balanced. When an argument uses phrases like “learn everything there” without justification, it is usually weak.

Final Answer:
Only Argument I is strong. Therefore the correct option is Only argument I is strong.