Critical reasoning – Should tuition fees in all post-graduate courses be hiked considerably? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes. Higher fees will make students more serious and improve quality. II. No. Higher fees will force meritorious poor students to stay away.

Introduction / Context:
This policy question weighs access versus assumed behavioral effects of pricing. Strong arguments should rely on clear, relevant consequences and equity considerations rather than speculative claims about motivation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I asserts a causal link: higher price → seriousness → quality.
• II warns of exclusion of deserving students lacking means.

Concept / Approach:
Quality in higher education depends on pedagogy, faculty, infrastructure, and assessment more than on fee size alone. Equity and access are core public-policy concerns; pricing students out directly undermines inclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: The claim that higher fees inherently improve seriousness is speculative and not necessarily true; increased cost may increase stress or debt, not academic commitment. Weak.Argument II: Price barriers can exclude meritorious students, especially from low-income backgrounds, reducing social mobility and overall talent utilization. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Empirical evidence often links affordability and scholarships to broader participation and attainment. Raising fees without robust need-based aid will deter capable candidates—supporting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I strong: Unsupported generalization.
• Either/Neither/Both: Incorrect—only II stands as a solid, policy-relevant concern.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming price equals quality; ignoring financial-aid structures and their role in equity.

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong