Statement–Argument (Education Loans with Service Bonds): Statement: Before sanctioning education loans for higher studies, should the Government require students to sign a bond to work in India for a period? Arguments: I) No, such bonds are unworkable and could obstruct the development of young talent. II) Yes, this is the only way to ensure the nation benefits from its talent rather than just the individual. III) No, the step is too harsh. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Loan-linked service bonds aim to curb brain drain and assure public returns. The strength of arguments turns on feasibility, proportionality, and alternatives (e.g., incentives over compulsion).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Bonds can restrict mobility and may be hard to enforce across borders.
• Public interest in recouping investment is legitimate.
• “Only way” claims are suspect if alternatives exist.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments should be specific and realistic. I points to workability/talent development risks; III flags proportionality/harshness; II overstates necessity (“only way”).

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Practical enforcement & innovation impacts ⇒ strong.II: False exclusivity; scholarships with service, tax incentives, or alumni bonds exist ⇒ weak.III: Highlights rights/mobility concerns ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Countries commonly use voluntary incentives or limited service bonds—not absolute mandates—supporting I and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II endorse a fallacy; “None” ignores valid points in I/III.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating public interest with compulsion; ignoring global enforceability.

Final Answer:
Only I and III are strong.