Should correspondence courses at the university level be discontinued in India? Arguments: I. Yes, because only direct interaction between teachers and students in college helps the total development of personality. II. No, because the demand for discontinuing correspondence courses comes mainly from the elite, who may not understand the realities of poverty.

Introduction / Context:
The final question in this set is about correspondence courses at the university level. One argument supports discontinuing them to promote full personality development, while the other opposes discontinuation by pointing out that poor students need such options and that the demand for closure comes mainly from the elite.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Correspondence courses at the university level should be discontinued.
• Argument I: Yes, because only face to face college interaction truly develops personality.
• Argument II: No, because calls to discontinue these courses come mainly from elites who may not understand how poor students depend on them.
• We assume that higher education must balance quality of learning with accessibility for economically weaker sections.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I stresses the qualitative advantage of regular college education: interaction, participation and campus life. Argument II stresses equity and access: many working or poor students can only study through correspondence. Both points are relevant to the policy decision and therefore can be strong simultaneously.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument I. Regular classroom teaching allows direct interaction, discussion and extracurricular activities that help personality development. Step 2: This is a strong argument in favour of discontinuing purely correspondence based models, at least from a quality perspective. Step 3: Evaluate argument II. It highlights that correspondence courses allow poor and working students to study while living far from universities or while working. Step 4: This is also a strong argument against total discontinuation, because removing such programmes could deprive many students of any higher education opportunity.

Verification / Alternative check:
Real world policy discussions on distance education recognise both quality concerns and access benefits. This supports the idea that both arguments raise valid points.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that choose only one argument as strong overlook either the quality aspect or the access aspect. The option that neither argument is strong is clearly wrong. The option that the value of correspondence courses cannot be judged is not correct, because we can judge both pros and cons from these arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes think that if one argument favours discontinuation, the other must be weak. However, exams often present policy issues where both sides have legitimate concerns.

Final Answer:
Therefore, both arguments I and II are strong, and the correct option is the one that selects both as strong.