Statement: Should all management institutes in the country be brought under government control? Arguments: I. No. The government does not have adequate resources to run such institutes effectively. II. No. Each institute should be given freedom to function on its own. III. Yes. This would enable standardized education for all students. IV. Yes. Only then would the quality of education improve. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument or arguments.

Introduction / Context:
The policy trades off autonomy and innovation against uniformity and common standards. Strong arguments should be grounded in capacity, governance, and educational outcomes rather than assertions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public resource constraints affect oversight and direct operation quality.
• Autonomy can foster curricular agility and industry linkage.
• Standardization can improve comparability but may stifle innovation if over-centralized.

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate whether each claim offers a principled reason that would likely hold in policy design.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Realistic capacity limits mean blanket control could dilute effectiveness.II: Strong. Institutional autonomy supports context-sensitive pedagogy and partnerships.III: Strong. Some degree of standardization aids baseline quality and cross-comparison; however, this does not require full control, but the argument itself has merit.IV: Weak. Claims that only government control can improve quality is overstated; quality improves via accreditation, faculty, funding, and competition.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems combine autonomy with accreditation frameworks, capturing I, II, and the useful part of III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All” includes IV which overreaches; answers excluding any of I-III miss valid considerations.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating standard setting with operational control.

Final Answer:
Only I, II and III are strong