Statement–Argument — Should students be allowed to work while studying? Arguments: I) Yes; many students lack the financial background to fund their education, and work makes pursuing studies feasible. II) Yes; vocational and practical experience builds self-sufficiency and makes academic learning more meaningful to the real world. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Part-time work policies aim to improve access and employability. This question tests whether financial feasibility (I) and experiential learning (II) are independently persuasive grounds to allow students to work.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Education costs can be substantial relative to family income.
• Structured work (internships, apprenticeships, campus jobs) can complement learning.
• Safeguards (work-hour caps, academic minimums) can mitigate overload risks.

Concept / Approach:
Each argument should be assessed on its own merits. Argument I is strong because it removes a financial barrier to participation in education. Argument II is also strong because practical experience improves employability and deepens understanding, serving the educational mission.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Co-op programs and sandwich courses internationally demonstrate the value of work-study models.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II” ignore the other valid rationale; “Neither” contradicts wide empirical support.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming unlimited working hours; sensible caps align work with academic success.

Final Answer:
If either I or II is strong.