Statement: Should new universities be established in India? Arguments: I. No. We have not yet achieved universal literacy. II. No. We already face the problem of highly educated but unemployed youth. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Higher education and basic literacy are complementary, not mutually exclusive. The question is whether establishing new universities is advisable; strong arguments must address demand–supply gaps in tertiary education, quality, regional access, and fiscal priorities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India has heterogeneous regional needs and gross enrolment disparities.
• Quality assurance and employability are concerns alongside access.

Concept / Approach:
Judge whether the arguments focus on the policy’s core considerations rather than false dilemmas.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I links university expansion to illiteracy, implying “finish literacy first.” This is a false trade-off. Primary education and higher education can be advanced in parallel with separate budgets, institutions, and policy tools.Argument II equates unemployment among the educated with oversupply of universities. Unemployment may reflect skills mismatch, quality issues, or economic cyclicality; halting university creation does not address these root causes. Without showing that new universities would exacerbate unemployment, this is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
A strong case would weigh targeted expansion (STEM/healthcare/teacher training), industry linkage, and accreditation reforms—missing in both arguments.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either”/“Only” options wrongly treat weak generalities as decisive. “Both” compounds two unrelated objections.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a single budget pool for all education; blaming university numbers for unemployment rather than quality and market linkages.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong.