Statement–Argument — Should all school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions? Arguments: I) No; needy students would be deprived of these teachers’ expertise. II) Yes; this is an injustice to unemployed educated people who could earn via tuitions. III) Yes; only then will the quality of teaching in schools improve. IV) Yes; teachers’ salaries are now reasonable. Choose the strong set.

Introduction / Context:
Regulating private tuitions by school teachers involves access, conflicts of interest, and instructional quality. Strong arguments must tie directly to student impact or school outcomes, not unrelated employment claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some students rely on extra help from experienced teachers.
• Allowing paid tuitions can create incentives that may affect in-class quality.
• Teacher compensation levels vary; “reasonable salary” alone does not address conflict-of-interest dynamics.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: banning may reduce access to high-quality help for needy students. Argument III is also strong: prohibiting private coaching by in-school teachers may remove perverse incentives and refocus effort on classroom quality (a plausible mechanism). Argument II is weak—teachers’ regulation is not about providing income to unemployed others. Argument IV is weak—salary levels do not, by themselves, resolve quality or conflict issues.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Where bans exist, policies often pair them with after-school support inside schools, reconciling I and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II/IV over-value weak reasoning; “III and IV” ignores the strong access concern in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing fairness to unemployed workers with student-outcome policy.

Final Answer:
I and III are strong.