Statement: Should there be a complete ban on Indian professionals taking jobs abroad after receiving their education in India? Arguments: I. Yes. This is the only way to sustain India’s current rate of technological development. II. No. Indians settled abroad remit large amounts of foreign exchange that significantly add to reserves. III. No. Practical knowledge gained while working abroad ultimately helps India’s economy (skills, networks, technology). Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The proposal suggests a blanket ban on Indian professionals working abroad after being educated in India. Evaluating the arguments requires testing necessity, proportionality, and economic impact. A strong argument should identify clear, policy-relevant mechanisms and avoid sweeping, unsubstantiated claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• International mobility brings remittances, technology transfer, and professional networks.
• Domestic technological capacity depends on education quality, R&D investment, and ecosystem strength—not only on restricting mobility.
• Blanket bans have legal, ethical, and practical drawbacks (enforcement, rights, global engagement).

Concept / Approach:
We test whether each argument provides a proportionate and causally credible reason for or against an absolute ban, and whether alternative policies (bonded scholarships, return incentives, research funding) could achieve goals with fewer downsides.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I (Yes): Claims a ban is the “only way” to sustain technological growth. This is overstated. Alternative levers exist: increase R&D spending, create attractive research careers, offer return fellowships, and ease entrepreneurship. Hence, I is weak.Argument II (No): Remittances and foreign exchange directly benefit the economy. This is a concrete, macro-relevant mechanism that weighs against an absolute ban. Strong.Argument III (No): Skill upgrading abroad (methods, standards, IP exposure) and subsequent return or remote collaboration foster domestic capability. Mechanism is credible and policy-relevant. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Talent circulation frameworks (scholarship bonds, return grants, dual-appointment models) preserve benefits without rights-restricting prohibitions—supporting II and III over a ban.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ignores better alternatives; single-II or single-III undercounts the complementary strengths; “None” ignores clear benefits from II and III.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating brain drain as one-way loss; overlooking brain circulation and remittance channels.

Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong