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
Discussion & Comments