Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only II and III are strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Professional-course admissions weigh fairness, predictiveness, and comparability. The question is whether to replace entrance tests entirely with past academic performance.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:We assess which arguments address validity and comparability (selection quality) versus those that can be solved by auxiliary policies without changing the selection principle.
Step-by-Step Solution:I: Cost concerns highlight equity but can be mitigated via waivers, scholarships, and free practice resources. This does not justify eliminating entrance tests outright. Weak.II: Points to a known measurement limitation—single-day, high-stakes tests can under-represent sustained achievement. This is directly relevant to selection quality. Strong.III: Heterogeneous school standards make a common benchmark valuable. This supports retaining an entrance component for calibration. Strong.
Verification / Alternative check:Many systems use blended models (weightage for past performance + entrance scores) to balance II and III while offering fee waivers to address I.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Including I mistakes a solvable affordability issue for a reason to overhaul assessment; “Only III” ignores II’s valid critique; “None” ignores II and III.
Common Pitfalls:Framing equity solutions (waivers) as selection-principle arguments.
Final Answer:Only II and III are strong
Discussion & Comments