Statement: Should sex education be imparted in schools? Arguments: I. Yes. All progressive nations provide sex education. II. No. It cannot be imparted in a coeducational school. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Statement and argument questions test whether an argument is policy relevant, evidence oriented, and logically connected to the decision. The proposal concerns sex education in schools, a topic linked to public health, consent, safety, and age appropriate pedagogy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The decision applies broadly to schools.
• Strong arguments should cite educational or health outcomes, feasibility, and safeguards.
• Appeals to trend or stigma are insufficient.

Concept / Approach:
Assess each argument for substance, not sentiment. Good reasoning should indicate why the policy advances welfare, learning, or safety.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Citing progressive nations is a weak analogy. Practices vary across contexts; the statement does not explain benefits such as reduced misinformation, improved health outcomes, or prevention of abuse. Without mechanism, it is weak.Argument II: Claims coeducation prevents delivery. That is stigma based rather than policy logic. Curriculum can be age appropriate, culturally sensitive, and delivered by trained staff in any school setting. Hence weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong pro argument would reference outcomes like awareness of consent and safety. A strong con argument would point to design risks and propose safer alternatives. Neither is presented.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options endorsing I or II treat non reasons as decisive. Either or both are not acceptable since both are weak.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating coeducation with inability to deliver sensitive curricula; relying on foreign practice as proof.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong.