Statement: Should religion be banned? Arguments: I. Yes. It develops…

In Statement-Argument reasoning, an argument is judged "strong" only when it is both important and directly relevant to the statement -- it must address a real, general effect, not a sweeping generalization, an occasional exception, or an unproven assumption. For a policy-type statement ("Should X be done?"), an argument that draws an extreme conclusion, such as a total ban, from only a partial or occasional effect does not meet this bar.

Argument I claims religion "develops fanaticism in people." Fanaticism arises from the misuse or extremist interpretation of religion by some individuals -- it is not an effect of religion as an institution itself -- so it does not justify banning religion for everyone; this makes Argument I weak. Argument II states religion "binds people together," pointing to religion's real and widely recognised social role of building community identity, shared values, and moral cohesion. This is a substantial, general, and directly relevant consideration against a blanket ban, which makes Argument II strong.

• Only argument I is strong -- fails, because Argument I generalises an occasional or extremist misuse of religion into a defining feature of religion itself.

• Either I or II is strong -- fails, because the two arguments are not equally weighted; only the social-cohesion argument rests on a real, general effect, while the fanaticism argument rests on an exception.

• Neither I nor II is strong -- fails, because the social-cohesion effect of religion is a substantial and directly relevant consideration, so it is not accurate to say neither argument holds.

So, only Argument II is strong.