Access and equity — should higher education be restricted to only those who can pay? Statement: Should higher education be restricted to only those who can bear the expenditure? Arguments: I. Yes — higher education is costly and should not be given.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question weighs fiscal cost against merit-based access. A strong argument will recognize the social returns to talent and fairness concerns without making unsupported absolutes about financing models. Given Data / Assumptions: I asserts costliness implies exclusion, but does not consider scholarships, loans, or public support. II emphasizes that inability to pay should not bar capable students—addressing merit and opportunity. The question is about restriction “only to those who can pay,” an extreme stance. Concept / Approach: Strong arguments avoid extremes and consider equity instruments (need-based aid, income-contingent loans). Societies benefit from educating high-ability students regardless of income. Step-by-Step Solution: Argument I is weak as it equates cost with exclusion and ignores established funding solutions that preserve access.Argument II is strong; it directly rebuts the extreme restriction by appealing to merit and equal opportunity. Verification / Alternative check: Global practice: grants/loans/fee waivers ensure talented but poor students are not locked out. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Both / Either / Neither: These fail to recognize that only II robustly addresses the extremity of the proposal. Common Pitfalls: Treating affordability as a binary; policy toolkit is richer than “can pay vs. cannot pay.” Final Answer: Only argument II is strong

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments