Statement: Should candidates with qualifications higher than the job’s stated requirement be debarred from applying? Arguments: I. No. It will aggravate educated unemployment. II. Yes. Overqualified hires create complexes among employees and affect work adversely. III. No. It violates the individual’s basic rights to seek employment. IV. Yes. Productivity will increase if only optimally qualified candidates are hired. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Hiring policy should balance organizational fit with fair access. A blanket prohibition against “overqualified” applicants raises rights and labor-market concerns.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Underemployment and job scarcity are real in many segments.
• Employers can manage fit via interviews, probation, and pay bands.
• Rights-based frameworks protect non-discriminatory access to apply.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments either show clear societal harm from allowing applications or show rights/economic harms from forbidding them.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Debarring reduces available opportunities and worsens unemployment metrics—policy-relevant. Strong.II: “Creates complexes” is speculative and manageable by management practices; not a decisive basis for prohibition. Weak.III: Blanket debarment restricts individuals’ freedom to compete for work; screening should judge fit case-by-case. Strong.IV: Claiming productivity rises by excluding overqualified people is unsupported; productivity depends on role clarity, incentives, and management. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Better policy: permit applications, assess fit and retention risk during hiring.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II/IV overstate weak rationales; “Only III” omits macro employment logic in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming overqualification equals poor retention; ignoring contract/role design.

Final Answer:
Only I and III are strong