Statement: Should all government-owned educational institutions be handed over to the private sector? Arguments: I. Yes. Their educational standards will improve. II. Yes. Their educational standards will decline. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The proposal suggests wholesale transfer of government institutions to private management. A strong argument should present mechanisms (governance, competition, funding models) indicating why quality would rise or fall, not just assert outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Quality depends on leadership, accountability, teacher incentives, and regulation.
• Public and private sectors each include excellent and poor performers.

Concept / Approach:
Assess whether the arguments offer causal reasoning tied to the policy.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I asserts standards will improve but gives no mechanism (e.g., performance-linked funding, autonomy with accountability, or market competition). Without specifics, it is weak.Argument II asserts the opposite with equal vagueness, also weak. Blanket “Yes because improve” or “Yes because decline” lacks policy logic and evidence.

Verification / Alternative check:
Strong arguments would reference proven governance frameworks (charter models, outcome audits) or risks (cream-skimming, fee escalation) with safeguards. Absent here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Endorsing I or II treats assertion as analysis. “Either” still overvalues unsubstantiated claims. “Both” is contradictory.

Common Pitfalls:
Overgeneralizing from isolated success/failure cases; ignoring regulatory design.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong.