Statement–Argument — Should tuition fees in all postgraduate courses be hiked considerably? Arguments: I) Yes; higher fees will induce seriousness and improve quality. II) No; a steep hike will exclude meritorious poor students from postgraduate study. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Fee policy balances resource quality against equitable access. Both sides can offer policy-relevant considerations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Resources (labs, faculty) require funding; fees are one lever.
• Sharp hikes risk pricing out talented low-income students.
• Quality can improve via funding; access can be protected via aid—both are real concerns.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is potentially strong (resourcing → quality), though not universally true. Argument II is strong on access risks. Because each speaks to a legitimate policy goal, either can be considered strong depending on design.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Typical compromise: hike + targeted scholarships/loans; both arguments inform the design.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the opposing valid dimension; “Neither” is unrealistic.

Common Pitfalls:
All-or-nothing framing; ignoring financial-aid tools.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.