Statement–Argument — Should all management institutes be brought under government control? Arguments: I) No; government lacks adequate resources to run all such institutes effectively. II) No; institutes need operational autonomy to innovate and respond to industry. III) Yes; standardization would ensure uniform education for all students. IV) Yes; only then will quality improve. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Centralized control promises uniformity but may reduce agility. Management education benefits from curriculum flexibility, industry linkage, and rapid iteration. We weigh resource capacity, autonomy, and the realism of standardization claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public administration resources are finite; adding hundreds of institutes may dilute oversight and funding.
• Autonomy supports experimentation, partnerships, and niche programs.
• Standardization can set baselines but may stifle diversity and specialization if over-applied.

Concept / Approach:
I is strong because capacity constraints are real and directly affect outcomes. II is strong because autonomy is a recognized driver of program relevance. III is ambiguous: standardization helps minimum quality but does not require full government control; accreditation frameworks can achieve it. IV is weakly asserted (“only then”), ignoring alternative quality mechanisms (accreditation, rankings, outcome audits).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Quality assurance typically relies on accreditation councils and outcome metrics rather than blanket state control, supporting I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All are strong” elevates weak assertions; “I, II and III” wrongly treats III as necessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating oversight with ownership; ignoring mixed-model governance.

Final Answer:
I and II are strong.