Critical reasoning – Should children be prevented completely from watching television? Arguments: I. No. Television carries vital educational information. II. Yes. Television hampers children’s studies. III. Yes. Some programmes with sex and violence can misguide young children. IV. No. Television is the only way to educate the masses.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal suggests a complete prohibition on children watching TV. Strong arguments should directly address benefits, harms, and proportionality of a total ban.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I highlights educational value (documentaries, edutainment, school broadcasts).
• II cites study disruption, time displacement, and distraction.
• III notes exposure to harmful content.
• IV overstates TV as the “only” way to educate the masses.

Concept / Approach:
A total ban is extreme; a balanced policy would consider content curation, screen-time limits, and parental controls. Thus, arguments acknowledging both benefits (I) and harms (II, III) are strong and relevant; absolute claims like IV are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I – Strong: Recognizes significant educational programming; undermines case for a total ban.II – Strong: Academic performance can be hampered by excessive screen time; supports caution.III – Strong: Age-inappropriate content can negatively influence children; supports regulation.IV – Weak: “Only way” is factually incorrect; many channels of mass education exist (schools, radio, books, digital platforms).

Verification / Alternative check:
A proportionate policy (guided access) fits the mixed evidence—hence the strength of I–III together.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / I & II / I, II & IV / I, III & IV: Each either omits a key harm/benefit or includes the weak absolute claim of IV.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating regulation with prohibition; ignoring content and time management tools.

Final Answer:
Only I, II and III are strong