Statement–Argument (Admissions Basis: Past Academics vs Entrance Tests): Statement: Should admission to all professional courses be made on the basis of past academic performance rather than through entrance tests? Arguments: I) Yes, it will benefit candidates who cannot afford multiple entrance test fees and related expenses. II) Yes, many deserving students with high marks in qualifying examinations do not perform well on one-off entrance tests. III) No, boards/universities vary widely in standards, so entrance tests are needed to calibrate all applicants on a common yardstick. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Professional-course admissions must balance equity (access for capable students) with reliability (comparing applicants from diverse curricula). The statement proposes replacing entrance tests with past academic performance. We must assess which arguments provide decision-relevant, robust reasons for or against this policy, without relying on rhetoric or unsupported generalisations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Different school boards and universities grade using heterogeneous syllabi and evaluation practices.
• Entrance tests are typically standardised and simultaneous, but they impose monetary and time costs.
• Qualifying-exam marks reflect sustained performance; standardised tests aim to normalise comparisons.

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate each argument for relevance, specificity, and logical strength. A strong argument should connect the proposed policy to a clear benefit or risk that materially affects fairness, quality, or feasibility.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I (Cost barrier): Though affordability concerns are real, they argue for fee waivers, subsidies, or limited attempts—not for eliminating entrance tests altogether. The remedy does not require the proposed policy shift; hence I is comparatively weak.Assess II (Mismatch of testing modes): Many strong students may underperform on a single high-stakes test; recognising sustained academic work is a valid quality signal. This supports re-weighting or hybrid models and is decision-relevant—strong.Assess III (Calibration across systems): With heterogeneous boards, a common benchmark aids comparability and merit-based selection. This identifies a core purpose of entrance tests—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems adopt blended schemas (e.g., a composite of board scores + standardised test percentiles) to mitigate both cost and one-shot risk while retaining cross-board calibration. This consistency check supports II and III simultaneously.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing I and II inflates I despite its remedy mismatch; choosing I and III or only III underplays II’s valid critique of single-sitting assessment; “None” ignores clear merits in II and III.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating affordability issues with abandoning standardisation; assuming a single exam is the only calibration tool (weights, multiple sittings, and waivers can coexist).

Final Answer:
II and III are strong.