Introduction / Context:
This is an “Arguments” question. We must judge which arguments are strong, meaning relevant, logical, and sufficiently persuasive, without relying on extreme or unsupported assumptions. The policy is a blanket ban on teachers’ private tuitions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Debate: whether teachers should be barred from private tutoring.
- We assume standard goals: student welfare and improving school teaching quality.
- No specific statute or contract terms are provided; we reason from general policy principles.
Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments address direct consequences or align with widely accepted educational objectives (access, equity, conflict-of-interest management). Weak arguments are tangential, speculative, or appeal to sentiments not central to the decision.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I (No—students would lose access to expertise): Strong. It highlights a concrete negative externality for academically weak or low-income students who rely on affordable teacher-led help.Argument II (Yes—unemployed graduates need income): Weak. The core policy goal is school education quality and student outcomes, not job allocation among tutors. It is tangential to the main objective.Argument III (Yes—school teaching quality will improve): Strong. Private tuitions can create conflicts of interest (diverting energy/time, potential soft-pedalling in class). A ban could realign incentives toward classroom effectiveness.Argument IV (Yes—salaries are now reasonable): Weak as framed. Salary levels do not, by themselves, prove that a ban is necessary or beneficial for learning outcomes.
Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems regulate private tutoring to address conflicts of interest while protecting access; both student access (I) and classroom quality (III) are valid policy rationales in tension.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including II or IV overstate weak or irrelevant reasoning. “None of these” is incorrect because I and III are indeed strong.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing labour-market fairness with education-quality objectives; assuming salary alone resolves incentive issues.
Final Answer:
Only I and III are strong
Discussion & Comments