Statement: Should HIV-positive children be provided “in-house school” facilities instead of continuing in regular outside schools? Arguments: I. Yes. This preventive step will ease the tension of many parents who send their wards to outside schools. II. No. “In-house school” facilities would isolate children from the outside world, undermining the purpose of education and doing more harm than good. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Education policy should protect child rights, inclusion, and well-being. Strong arguments should align with non-discrimination, social integration, and educational purpose.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• HIV is not transmitted through casual classroom contact.
• Isolation risks stigma and social-development harm.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I prioritizes easing other parents’ anxiety, not the rights or interests of HIV-positive children; it legitimizes stigma, making it weak as a policy rationale. Argument II highlights isolation and harm to educational aims (socialization, inclusion), making a principled case against segregation—strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Weak—appeals to prejudice rather than public-interest education goals.• II: Strong—identifies direct harm to children’s learning and social development and conflicts with inclusive education principles.

Verification / Alternative check:
Inclusive schooling with awareness and safeguards protects all students while respecting rights, reinforcing II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option that includes I treats stigma relief as a valid policy end overriding children’s rights.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing public discomfort with a legitimate justification for exclusion.

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong.