Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts quantity growth with quality shortfalls: more schools exist, but most lack equipment and excellence. We must evaluate two proposed conclusions: (I) in future we should provide good teachers/equipment to these schools; (II) we need not open any more schools.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Quantity has increased (more schools).
- Quality is lacking (most are ill-equipped; excellence not achieved).
- Conclusion I: Improve inputs (teachers, equipment) to address quality gap.
- Conclusion II: Stop opening new schools.
Concept / Approach:
- From a diagnosis of quality deficiency, a prescription to improve quality inputs directly addresses the problem—this is a reasonable course-of-action conclusion.
- Nothing in the statement implies that additional capacity is never needed; stopping expansion is not warranted by the data.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Conclusion I: Aligns with the identified gap (equipment/excellence) and therefore follows logically as a remedial direction.Conclusion II: Does not follow. Demand for schooling could still exceed supply; the statement does not address capacity sufficiency, only quality.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if more schools are needed for access, improving current quality remains necessary; therefore I stands independently of II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Accepting II extrapolates beyond evidence. 'Neither' ignores an obvious quality-improvement implication.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing 'quality gap' with 'no need for quantity expansion.' They are different policy issues.
Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows
Discussion & Comments