Should computer knowledge be made a compulsory subject for all students at the secondary school level? Arguments: I. No, our immediate national need is basic food and employment for everyone, so we should not simply follow western education models. II. Yes, India cannot compete in the international market without equipping its children with computer skills.

Introduction / Context:
This question discusses whether computer knowledge should be compulsory in secondary schools. One argument opposes the idea by referring to basic needs like food, and the other supports it by linking computers to global competitiveness. You must determine which argument is strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Computer knowledge should be a compulsory subject at secondary level.
• Argument I: No, the priority is bread and jobs, not following western education models.
• Argument II: Yes, India needs computer educated children to compete internationally.
• We assume that education policy should prepare students for future economic and technological realities.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must be logically connected to the aim of school education. Modern education must equip learners with skills needed in a technology driven world. Simply stating that food and employment are priorities does not directly argue against computer education, because both basic needs and education can be pursued together.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument I. It contrasts basic needs with computers and warns against copying western models. Step 2: This does not actually show why computers should not be taught. Food security and computer education are not mutually exclusive. So argument I is weak. Step 3: Evaluate argument II. It directly connects compulsory computer education with India's ability to compete globally. Step 4: In a digital economy, computer literacy is indeed essential, so argument II is strong and relevant.

Verification / Alternative check:
Look at global trends: countries that invest in digital skills have better chances in technology sectors. This supports argument II strongly.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
The option that only argument I is strong is wrong because I does not address the core educational objective. The option that both are strong is wrong as they do not have equal merit. The option that neither is strong ignores the clear validity of argument II.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes overvalue emotional appeals like poverty without checking if they actually answer the question asked.

Final Answer:
Therefore, only argument II is strong, so the correct option is the one that selects argument II alone as strong.