Statement: Should religion be banned? Arguments: 1. Yes. Religion develops fanaticism in people. 2. No. Religion also binds people together and can promote social cohesion.

Introduction / Context:
This question touches a sensitive topic: whether religion itself should be banned. The exam is not asking you to advocate real-world bans, but to evaluate the logical strength of arguments for and against the statement. One argument points to the risk of fanaticism, while the other emphasises the positive role of religion in binding people together. We must treat this purely as an abstract reasoning exercise, not as advice for real policy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should religion be banned?
Argument 1: Yes. It develops fanaticism in people.
Argument 2: No. Religion binds people together.
We assume that religion can, in different contexts, sometimes lead to conflict and sometimes promote unity.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is one that raises a significant, relevant concern. It does not have to cover all aspects of the issue, but must highlight an important possible consequence. Here, Argument 1 refers to extremism and fanaticism, which are real concerns, while Argument 2 mentions social cohesion and unity, which are also real observed effects. Both perspectives can be considered strong in the context of a reasoning test, even though they support opposite conclusions.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument 1: It says that religion develops fanaticism in people. In many parts of the world, conflicts have been associated with religious extremism when beliefs are misused or taken to violent extremes. Because fanaticism can lead to division and even violence, this is a serious concern. However, this argument focuses on the negative potential of religion rather than its role in people's lives overall. Evaluate Argument 2: It says religion binds people together. Religions often build communities, provide shared values, festivals and support structures, and can create a strong sense of belonging. This contributes to social cohesion and mutual support among believers. Thus, Argument 2 highlights a major positive role of religion in society. Both arguments refer to real and important effects; they are individually strong but point in opposite directions.

Verification / Alternative check:
In many societies, there is evidence of both religious harmony and religious conflict. Therefore, both the risk of fanaticism and the power of religion to unite people are genuine considerations. Since the question uses the standard yes/no pattern without giving further data, it is reasonable to regard both as strong arguments, leading to the coding “either 1 or 2 is strong”. This does not mean endorsing a ban; it only reflects that both sides present substantial reasons.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying only Argument 1 is strong ignores the widely observed positive community role of religion.
Saying only Argument 2 is strong ignores real-world problems created by religious extremism in some contexts.
Claiming neither is strong is incorrect, as both refer to major social phenomena.
Treating both 1 and 2 as simultaneously strong in a separate code does not match the usual exam convention for yes/no argument questions, where “either 1 or 2” is used for two opposing yet strong arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Because the subject is sensitive, students may let personal beliefs influence their judgement of argument strength. In reasoning tests, however, you should focus on whether arguments are realistic and relevant. Another pitfall is assuming that recognising negative effects of something automatically justifies a total ban, or that acknowledging positive effects means ignoring all risks. Logic questions often expect you to see that complex issues can have strong arguments on both sides.

Final Answer:
Both arguments 1 and 2 are individually strong but lead to opposite conclusions, so the correct choice is Either 1 or 2 is strong.