Statement–Argument — Is it necessary that education should be job-oriented? Arguments: I) Yes; education aims to prepare people for earning. II) Yes; after education, a person should stand on their own feet. III) No; education should be for knowledge only. IV) No; one may take up agriculture where education is not necessary. Select the strong set.

Introduction / Context:
Education serves multiple purposes—economic, civic, cultural, and personal growth. The prompt asks whether job orientation is necessary; strong pro arguments will emphasize economic self-reliance, while strong cons would need to show why utility should not be a requirement for necessity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Employability and livelihood are primary expectations from formal education.
• Non-vocational aims (knowledge, culture) also matter, but the question is about necessity for job orientation.
• Appeals that ignore this “necessity” framing are weaker.

Concept / Approach:
Arguments I and II are aligned with the necessity claim: education should enable earning/self-reliance, a core societal expectation—hence strong. Argument III (“knowledge only”) undermines necessity without addressing economic realities; it is more about sufficiency for a different goal. Argument IV is weak: citing agriculture as “not needing education” is both questionable and not responsive to the broad necessity claim.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Work-integrated learning and vocational curricula embody I & II; universities still include liberal studies, but the “necessity” bar favors job relevance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options featuring III/IV misread the necessity framing.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “important” with “necessary;” using niche counterexamples to reject general policy.

Final Answer:
I and II arguments are strong.