Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only Argument II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The statement asks whether religion should be taught in schools. In Statement–Argument questions, a “strong” argument is relevant, specific, and logically supports or opposes the statement without relying on sweeping generalizations or vague claims. We evaluate two competing arguments for strength and applicability to the decision at hand.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:A strong argument should be policy-relevant. Secularism means the state does not favor one religion; it does not automatically ban teaching about religions, especially in a neutral, comparative way. On the other hand, an argument highlighting a concrete educational benefit (moral development) directly addresses outcomes schools care about and is therefore policy-relevant and specific.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: “No; ours is a secular state.” This is an over-broad appeal. Secularism implies neutrality, not ignorance; curricula like history/civics often cover religions factually. Hence I is weak.Test II: “Yes; teaching religion helps inculcate moral values.” This links the proposal to a clear educational objective (character/moral education). It is relevant, specific, and non-fallacious. Hence II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:If the syllabus implements a neutral, comparative religion or ethics course, the state remains secular while potential moral/character benefits can accrue. Thus II stands as a policy-grounded reason; I misapplies the secularism principle.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either I or II” suggests both are strong but mutually exclusive; I is not strong. “Neither” is wrong because II is strong. “Only I” is incorrect given I’s weakness.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing secularism (neutrality) with prohibition; assuming that any mention of religion violates secular norms.
Final Answer:if only Argument II is strong.
Discussion & Comments