I chose the third option. I try my best to evaluate my beliefs using evidence, logic, and reason, and I think a lot of my beliefs are able to stand scrutiny against evidence and logic (especially the ones about which I have thought the longest and most extensively). However, being human, I'm also unavoidably going to have my own biases and lapses in reasoning at times, which may manifest more in some areas than others. I believe that these aspects of human nature will never change; we can only temper them with education, open-mindedness, and critical thinking, but they will never become absent from human nature.
As for whether rationality is important, if we define rationality as the "faculty of soundly employing logic and evaluating evidence," I think that's essential in a lot of contexts, but not always. If I'm reading about a major new scientific discovery or historical finding, rational analysis is crucial. If I'm talking to friends or trying to understand the emotional characters of different people, strict rationality may not be as important as intuition (tempered by other faculties as well), experience, knowledge about psychology, empathy, etc. Rationality may still be useful when assessing the input from these other domains, though.
In my opinion, by far the most significant expression of rationality is to identify our limits as humans and seek to temper them, especially by openness to learning and new evidence or arguments. On the other hand, if we shut that door of self-improvement and instrospection because we think we're already perfectly rational, we're going to be far more prone to all sorts of irrationality, bias, and lack of discipline, whether intellectually or emotionally.
