Statement–Argument — Should all deemed universities be derecognized and attached to Central or State universities? Arguments: I) Yes; many deemed universities do not meet full university standards, compromising education quality. II) No; autonomy has enabled innovative, industry-aligned courses free from rigid controls. III) Yes; several institutions operate primarily as money-spinning businesses where education takes a back seat. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The debate concerns oversight versus autonomy in higher education. A directive to derecognize all deemed universities is sweeping; strong arguments should point to systemic quality lapses or malpractices, while acknowledging that autonomy can foster innovation where standards are upheld.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Some deemed universities may fail to meet accreditation and faculty/research benchmarks.
• Others may deliver responsive curricula leveraging autonomy.
• Commercial motives can conflict with academic rigor in poorly governed institutions.

Concept / Approach:
I is strong because it cites quality non-compliance, which directly justifies tighter affiliation. III is strong because predatory or profit-first models undermine academic goals. II, while plausible in principle, is not an argument against attaching sub-standard institutions; it supports retaining autonomy where standards are met, but the prompt proposes a blanket derecognition—II does not rebut the case against failing institutions.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Common regulatory responses include periodic reviews, conversion/merger with public universities, or withdrawal of status for violators, consistent with I and III forming the main case for attachment.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“I and II” misreads II as a blanket counter despite quality failures; “II and III” drops the quality cornerstone.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming autonomy guarantees quality absent accountability.

Final Answer:
I and III are strong.