Introduction / Context:
The question asks which arguments strongly support compulsory education up to age 14. Strong arguments are those that are relevant, logical, and consequential for the stated policy goal.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Policy: compulsory schooling through age 14.
- Goals commonly include reducing child labour, building human capital, and improving social indicators.
- Resource constraints may exist but do not automatically invalidate the policy objective.
Concept / Approach:
We evaluate each argument on relevance and sufficiency, avoiding defeatism (“we lack infrastructure”) as a reason to reject a foundational policy. Implementation challenges typically call for phased rollouts, not policy abandonment.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Compulsory education directly reduces child labour by restricting legal employment age and keeping children in school.II: Strong. Universal primary/lower secondary education is a cornerstone for raising education levels across a population.III: Weak. Infrastructure gaps are an implementation challenge; they argue for investment/plans, not for rejecting the principle.IV: Strong. Education robustly correlates with higher lifetime earnings and improved living standards.
Verification / Alternative check:
Global development experience links compulsory schooling with reductions in child labour and long-term gains in human capital and income.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including III overstate a logistical hurdle. Saying “only II” ignores stronger social objectives and outcomes in I and IV.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating capacity constraints as reasons to abandon core rights-based education policies.
Final Answer:
Only I, II and IV are strong
Discussion & Comments