Statement: Should all graduates be allowed to enroll in any post-graduate course of their choice regardless of undergraduate background or capacity constraints? Arguments: I. Yes. Students are the best judges of their own capability and should face no restrictions. II. No. Post-graduate programs require relevant prerequisites; eligibility conditions must be met. III. No. Institutes have limited seats and cannot accommodate all interested graduates in any subject they choose. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
PG admission policy must balance academic readiness with feasible capacity planning. The proposal allows open PG enrollment irrespective of prerequisites or seats.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Most PG curricula build on discipline-specific foundations.
• Institutions face physical, faculty, and lab capacity limits.
• Bridging programs can exist but do not nullify prerequisites wholesale.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should speak to academic validity (eligibility) and operational feasibility (capacity).

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Appeals to self-assessment, but admissions ensure cohort readiness and learning outcomes. Insufficient for unrestricted access. Weak.II: Stresses prerequisite knowledge for PG rigor—directly relevant to quality and outcomes. Strong.III: Notes finite capacity and allocation—practical and policy-relevant. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Fair policy: retain eligibility filters and use merit-based selection; offer formal bridge pathways where appropriate.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options containing I overstate self-choice; “None” ignores II/III; “All” includes weak I.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating personal interest with academic preparedness.

Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong