Statement–Argument — Should university degrees be completely delinked from employment eligibility criteria? Arguments: I) Yes; many current subjects lack practical application in their course structure. II) Yes; delinking will reduce the rush for conventional degrees and curb the pool of ‘‘educated unemployed’’. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Hiring based purely on degrees can misalign skills and jobs. Strong arguments should either pinpoint curricular irrelevance or demonstrate how incentives would shift towards skill-based pathways, reducing credential inflation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some degrees are theory-heavy and weakly tied to occupational skills.
• Employers increasingly value demonstrable competencies, portfolios, and certifications.
• Degree-linked hiring can fuel demand for credentials regardless of job relevance.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong because it questions the suitability of degrees as proxies for job readiness when curricula are not practice-oriented. Argument II is strong because delinking can reduce “credential chasing”, push candidates toward vocational, apprenticeship, or competency-based routes, and thus mitigate the “educated unemployed” problem.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Skill-first recruitment pilots (tests, micro-credentials) support both lines of reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the complementary logic; “Neither” overlooks real inefficiencies in degree-centric hiring.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “delink” as “abolish higher education” rather than diversify hiring signals.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.