Statement: Should religion be taught in schools? Arguments: I. No. India is a secular state. II. Yes. Teaching religion can inculcate moral values among children. III. No. We should prepare the young for the 21st century instead of teaching religion. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The issue pits constitutional secularism and social cohesion against value education. The strength of arguments depends on whether they are framed in policy-relevant terms (civics, comparative religion, ethics) rather than vague generalities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Secularism implies state neutrality among religions.
• Schools may legitimately teach ethics/civics or comparative culture with safeguards against proselytization.
• Curricular time is limited; choices must be justified.

Concept / Approach:
We distinguish between (a) proselytizing instruction (problematic under secularism) and (b) neutral ethics/comparative modules (possible within secular norms).

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Invokes constitutional secularism—strong as a caution against sectarian instruction.II: Moral formation is a valid educational goal; an ethics/values curriculum or non-sectarian comparative religion can, in principle, support social understanding. Strong.III: “21st century role” is vague and not a direct policy reason; modern citizenship includes ethical literacy. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems teach ethics/civics without endorsing any faith—reconciling I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All” includes weak III; singletons ignore the valid countervailing strength of the other.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating any discussion of religion with proselytizing; ignoring secular ethics alternatives.

Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong