Introduction / Context:
A forthcoming bill to allow private universities “under very strict directions” signals a policy response to a perceived need. We select the most reasonable implication without asserting facts not supported by the statement.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- A new bill will permit private universities with strict regulatory directions.
- “Soon” implies urgency and a current gap in the framework.
Concept / Approach:
- Legislation is typically undertaken to address growing demand or regulatory voids.
- A cautious framework (“very strict directions”) often accompanies expansion into sensitive sectors (higher education quality/fees/affiliations).
Step-by-Step Solution:
Option b states that the demand for more universities is increasing—this is the most plausible trigger for enabling private participation through a bill.Option a claims existing private universities; the text neither confirms nor denies this.Option c speculates on bypassing Parliament—contradicted by the fact that a bill is being introduced.Option d overgeneralizes government’s role across all private-sector establishments.Option e alleges fee gouging without support; “strict directions” may relate to many aspects, not just fees.
Verification / Alternative check:
A move to permit and regulate private universities generally follows capacity and access pressures, aligning with option b.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either assert unmentioned facts, contradict the legislative route, or overgeneralize policy behavior.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the statement confirms present existence of private universities or specific fee outcomes.
Final Answer:
The demand for more universities is being stepped up.
Discussion & Comments