Introduction / Context:
The policy proposed is extreme: a complete ban on professional out-migration. Strong arguments must address economic effects, knowledge flows, and feasibility without relying on absolutes.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I asserts a ban is the “only way” to sustain technological progress — absolute claim.
- II cites remittances as a macroeconomic benefit.
- III cites skill acquisition and knowledge transfer from global exposure.
Concept / Approach:
- International labor mobility can yield remittances, networks, technology diffusion, and return migration.
- Absolutist claims lacking necessity are weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is weak: Domestic innovation depends on ecosystems (R&D, finance, institutions), not solely on preventing migration.II is strong: Remittances and savings from diaspora materially support foreign exchange and domestic consumption.III is strong: Professionals often bring back expertise, partnerships, and standards that aid development.
Verification / Alternative check:
Countries with active diasporas leverage talent abroad for investment and knowledge transfer; this supports II and III.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
All / I&II / Only III alone: These misclassify the absolute I or exclude the valid II.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “brain drain” has only costs; it also has offsetting benefits when managed well.
Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong
Discussion & Comments