Statement–Argument — Should people over-qualified beyond job requirements be debarred from seeking those jobs? Arguments: I) No; it would aggravate educated unemployment. II) Yes; it creates complexes among employees and harms work. III) No; it goes against basic individual rights. IV) Yes; it will increase productivity. Identify the strong set.

Introduction / Context:Screening out candidates with higher-than-required qualifications raises fairness and labor-market efficiency issues. Strong arguments should appeal to rights and systemic employment impacts rather than speculative morale claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Employment policy should not arbitrarily bar willing applicants who meet minimum criteria.
• Debarring over-qualified candidates can raise joblessness among the educated segment.
• Claims about “complexes” or “productivity boost” require evidence; they are speculative.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: exclusion increases unemployment among qualified people—an adverse systemic effect. Argument III is strong: arbitrary debarment conflicts with equal opportunity/basic rights. Argument II is weak: morale/complex claims are speculative and manageable through HR practices. Argument IV is weak: excluding over-qualified people does not inherently raise productivity.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Fit–retention concerns can be handled by probation and realistic job previews rather than blanket bans.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“All are strong” overstates; “II and IV” selects weak claims; “Only III” omits I’s systemic impact.

Common Pitfalls:Treating HR management issues as justification for rights-limiting policies.

Final Answer:I and III are strong.