Statement: Should all correspondence courses at the graduate level be stopped? Arguments: I. No. Correspondence courses help needy students continue their studies while earning at the same time. II. Yes. Quality education is not possible without teachers and classrooms. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Statement-and-Argument problems ask whether a reason is policy-relevant, practical, and sufficiently general to support or oppose a proposal. The proposal here is an absolute ban on graduate-level correspondence (distance/online) courses. A strong argument should speak to access, outcomes, feasibility, or proportionality of the restriction.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Graduate-level students include working adults and geographically distant learners.
• Correspondence/online modes can be designed with assessments, proctoring, mentorship, and tutoring.
• A total ban eliminates a pathway for those who cannot attend in-person classes regularly.

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate each argument for: (a) relevance to the decision, (b) presence of a causal mechanism, and (c) proportionality (why a total ban rather than quality regulation?).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I (No, keep correspondence courses): It ties the mode to access and equity—students can work and learn simultaneously. That is a direct, policy-relevant benefit with clear mechanism (flexibility, affordability, geographic reach). Strong.Argument II (Yes, ban because classrooms are essential): This assumes that quality requires physical classrooms and ignores modern instructional design (synchronous sessions, recorded lectures, interactive forums, monitored labs, internships). It does not justify a blanket ban over better accreditation and quality controls. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Quality issues are better addressed by setting standards (faculty-student ratio, contact hours, lab requirements, proctored exams) rather than prohibiting a whole mode. Therefore, preserving access while regulating quality aligns with public interest.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II is weak and does not support a ban; “either” and “both” misclassify strengths; “neither” ignores the solid access rationale in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating older “correspondence” with modern, well-supported distance education; assuming pedagogy quality depends only on venue.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong