Statement–Argument (Eligibility for Post-Graduate Enrollment Across Disciplines): Statement: Should any graduate be allowed to enroll in a post-graduate programme of their choice regardless of undergraduate discipline? Arguments: I) Yes, students know their capabilities; there should be no restrictions. II) No, relevant prerequisites are needed; eligibility criteria must be satisfied. III) No, there are not enough PG seats to accommodate all interested graduates. Choose the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:PG admissions must balance academic rigor with access. Prerequisite knowledge and capacity constraints are legitimate policy considerations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Many PG programmes require specific foundations.
• Seat availability is finite.
• Bridging pathways can exist but are not universal.

Concept / Approach:II is strong because prerequisites ensure learning readiness. III is strong because planning must reflect capacity. I overstates autonomy while ignoring academic requirements.

Step-by-Step Solution:Evaluate I: Lacks academic sufficiency criterion ⇒ weak.Evaluate II: Protects programme standards ⇒ strong.Evaluate III: Recognises capacity/quality constraints ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:Bridging/certification tracks reconcile I with II but do not nullify II/III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Including I ignores discipline-specific readiness; excluding II/III misses core constraints.

Common Pitfalls:Equating interest with preparedness.

Final Answer:Only II and III are strong.