Introduction / Context:
The proposal links curriculum reform (application-focused science education) with improved employment outcomes. We must spot the minimal beliefs that support this policy suggestion.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I: Graduates of such education may be able to earn a livelihood (e.g., skills become employable/entrepreneurial).
- II: The shift will instill a stronger sense of purpose or “meaning” of education among youth, improving engagement/outcomes.
- III: The state’s tax revenue will rise because more people undertake self-employment.
Concept / Approach:
- If reform is to improve employment, it assumes employability/earning capacity will increase (I).
- Motivation and relevance (II) plausibly support better uptake and outcomes; this underlies the call to “recast.”
- Revenue effects (III) are ancillary; employment policy need not assume a specific fiscal outcome to be justified.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Retain I: Directly tied to employment improvement.Retain II: Supports the educational rationale improving uptake and effectiveness.Drop III: Not necessary for advocating curricular change.
Verification / Alternative check:
If I or II is false, the rationale weakens. The proposal does not hinge on tax revenue mechanics.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“None” ignores the core employability premise; options including III add an unneeded fiscal requirement.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming policy proposals must entail explicit budgetary impacts to be justified.
Final Answer:
Only I and II are implicit
Discussion & Comments