Critical reasoning – Admissions policy for professional courses Statement: Should admission be based on past academic performance rather than entrance tests? Arguments: I. Yes. It helps candidates who cannot afford the costs of entrance tests. II. Yes. Many high scorers in school exams do poorly on entrance tests. III. No. Boards/universities assess differently; entrance tests provide a common yardstick.

Introduction / Context:Professional programme admissions need to be fair, comparable across varied schooling systems, and predictive of success. We must weigh equity, measurement validity, and practicality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I argues affordability; entrance test expenses burden some candidates.
• II notes misalignment between school marks and test performance.
• III emphasizes variability in standards across Boards; entrance tests normalize evaluation.

Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are those that bear on selection validity and fairness of measurement. While affordability (I) is important, it can be addressed by fee waivers/subsidies without discarding standardized selection. Arguments II and III directly concern measurement reliability and comparability.

Step-by-Step Solution:I – Weaker: Cost barriers are an access problem best solved via financial aid, not by eliminating common testing.II – Strong: Divergence shows that school marks alone may not capture aptitude for professional courses; supports alternative metrics.III – Strong: Heterogeneous grading practices necessitate a common yardstick to calibrate applicants fairly.

Verification / Alternative check:Many systems use blended models (tests + past performance) plus financial support—recognizing II and III while mitigating I via aid.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I & II or I & III or All: Overstates I as a reason to eliminate tests rather than fix affordability.
• Only III: Ignores the valid concern in II.

Common Pitfalls:Conflating equity-of-access issues with measurement-validity decisions.

Final Answer:Only II and III are strong