Arguments evaluation (ban on religion): Should religion be banned altogether? Evaluate—(I) Yes: religion develops fanaticism; (II) No: religion binds people together—checking relevance, overgeneralisation, and societal function.

Given data

• Question: Whether to ban religion, a broad social institution.
• Argument I: Generalises religion as fostering fanaticism—an overreach.
• Argument II: Recognises its cohesive/social-binding roles.

Concept/Approach
A strong argument avoids blanket condemnation and focuses on core societal roles. Banning a foundational institution requires far more than citing possible pathologies.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: I is an overgeneralisation—fanaticism is neither universal nor inherent; weak for a blanket ban.Step 2: II points to integrative functions (community, identity, norms); relevant and stronger.

Verification/Alternative
Policy typically regulates harmful practices while protecting freedom of belief—aligns with II rather than I.

Common pitfalls

• Confusing regulation of excesses with prohibition of the institution itself.

Final Answer
Only argument II is strong.