Statement & Argument — Should subsidy on higher education be reduced as soon as possible? Arguments: I. No; without subsidy, higher education will go beyond the reach of many. II. Yes; primary education is more important for a largely illiterate population and should be prioritized.

Introduction / Context:
Public funding faces trade-offs. A “Yes/No” policy question can have strong opposing arguments if each stands on a legitimate principle—equity/access versus prioritization of foundational literacy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Subsidies lower the private cost of higher education and expand access.
• Budgets are finite; prioritization might favor primary schooling where social returns are high.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I stresses equity and human capital formation at higher tiers; Argument II stresses opportunity cost and foundational returns. Both are policy-relevant.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Removing subsidies prices out poorer students, reducing mobility—strong.II: Redirecting funds to primary education addresses illiteracy and yields broad gains—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many countries blend both aims (targeted higher-ed aid + strong primary funding). The coexistence of valid but opposing reasons is exactly why the key is “either.”

Final Answer:
Either Argument I or II is strong.