Introduction / Context:
This item concerns whether IITs should be privatized. We judge the logical strength of each argument, not the ultimate policy outcome. Strong arguments provide reasoned mechanisms and avoid empty slogans or unsupported certainties.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I claims private governance can incentivize efficiency and quality.
- II is a slogan (“key of the new era”) lacking substance.
- III predicts a fall in standards but offers no mechanism.
Concept / Approach:
- Institutional quality is driven by incentives, autonomy, accountability, and funding models.
- Privatization could, in principle, align incentives (tuition, donations, performance), but consequences depend on design.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is strong: It presents a plausible mechanism (competition, financial discipline, quality focus) that could support the proposal.II is weak: It is a bandwagon/appeal-to-fashion statement with no reasoning.III is weak: It asserts harm without explaining why privatization would necessarily reduce standards at IITs.
Verification / Alternative check:
Different countries show mixed evidence, but the strength test hinges on reasoning quality; I meets that bar, II and III do not.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
All / II&III / I&III: These credit weak claims.None: Incorrect because I is cogent.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating “privatization” with uniform outcomes; the question is about argument strength, not empirical certainty.
Final Answer:
Only I is strong
Discussion & Comments