Statement: Should there be Board examinations for children in Class IV? Arguments: I. Yes. It motivates children to study harder and achieve higher marks, allowing more knowledge acquisition at a younger age. II. No. It will force children to study mechanically and reduce enjoyment of learning. III. Yes. In a competitive world, children should be prepared from the beginning to face rigorous examinations. IV. No. It will create undue pressure on tender-aged children and reduce their play time. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The question evaluates whether conducting Board examinations as early as Class IV is justifiable. A “strong” argument is one that directly bears on policy goals (educational outcomes, preparedness) with a principled rationale rather than vague fears or purely emotive claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy: early, standardized assessment via Board exams.
• Strength test: relevance to educational objectives (motivation, benchmarking, preparedness) vs. generic discomfort.
• No external data are assumed; judge intrinsic merit.

Concept / Approach:
Arguments favoring clear, measurable outcomes and alignment with system goals tend to be strong. Arguments relying only on generalized anxiety without explaining systemic harm are weaker unless they articulate concrete developmental risks.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I (Motivation/knowledge): Posits a mechanism—standardized stakes can incentivize effort and structured learning. Directly relevant and policy-linked ⇒ strong.• II (Forced study/no enjoyment): This is speculative and subjective. It does not demonstrate systemic harm beyond preference; enjoyment can be addressed by pedagogy, not necessarily by eliminating exams ⇒ weaker.• III (Preparedness/competitive world): Offers a strategic rationale—early benchmarking builds familiarity with formats and expectations. This connects to long-term readiness ⇒ strong.• IV (Pressure/less play): Although child well-being is crucial, the claim is broad and unqualified. It does not propose why calibrated assessments or exam design cannot mitigate pressure. As stated, it remains a generic concern ⇒ weaker.

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy designers can pair early assessments with child-friendly formats, formative feedback, and play-integrated curricula, lessening concerns in II and IV while preserving benefits in I and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “All are strong”: overstates the merit of II and IV.
• “I, II and IV” or “II, III and IV”: include weaker, largely emotive claims.
• “Only IV”: ignores systemic value arguments in I and III.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating any negative feeling with a policy-strong argument; strength requires a principled, policy-linked rationale.

Final Answer:
I and III are strong.