Statement–Argument — Should corporal punishment be banned in schools? Arguments: I. Yes. Poor performance reflects systemic/teaching gaps; values-based guidance and supportive pedagogy are preferable to physical punishment. II. No. An adamant child cannot be made to study unless corporal punishment is used.

Introduction / Context:
Educational policy increasingly rejects physical punishment, favouring evidence-based methods (positive reinforcement, counselling, differentiated instruction) to improve learning and behaviour.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Schools aim to maximise learning outcomes and protect child welfare.
• Physical punishment risks harm and can undermine trust and intrinsic motivation.
• Non-violent discipline strategies exist and can be effective.

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate whether each argument is relevant, reasonable, and aligned with educational objectives and rights. Strong arguments should not rest on unsubstantiated necessity claims.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I connects underperformance to pedagogical issues and recommends constructive alternatives. It is aligned with modern pedagogy and child-rights norms—strong.2) Argument II asserts corporal punishment as necessary for “adamant” children, a claim that is unsupported and contradicts safer, proven approaches. It also ignores potential harm—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Behavioural science supports non-violent, consistent, and supportive methods for classroom management.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge the relative evidentiary strength and ethical alignment of the arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing short-term compliance with long-term learning; ignoring rights-based obligations.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.