Statement: Should foreign collaborations in higher education be allowed without proper scrutiny? Arguments: I. No. Associations should not be allowed without scrutiny because some collaborations are fraudulent and make false promises of jobs and facilities. II. No. Foreign institutions may lure talented students, aggravating brain drain by promising jobs abroad. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The policy asks about allowing collaborations without scrutiny. Strong arguments must address why scrutiny is needed. Brain drain is a broader labor-market phenomenon, not specific to the lack of scrutiny.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Scrutiny filters fraud and quality risks.
• Brain drain occurs even with highly reputable, fully scrutinized institutions.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I directly targets the core of the statement: in the absence of scrutiny, fraud risk rises; therefore, “allow without scrutiny” should be rejected—strong. Argument II, although a genuine concern, does not hinge on the presence or absence of scrutiny; reputable collaborations can also attract talent abroad. Hence II does not specifically support the “without scrutiny” decision—weak in this context.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strong—scrutiny mitigates consumer protection and quality risks central to the decision.• II: Misaligned—addresses a different policy issue (migration), not the necessity of scrutiny.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even with stringent scrutiny, brain drain may persist; thus II is not a deciding argument on the posed question.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II mistakes a general effect for a scrutiny-specific rationale.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating quality-control policy with macro migration dynamics.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.