Statement–Courses of Action (policy reasoning): Most students of premier engineering colleges in India migrate to developed nations for better professional prospects; evaluate which remedial course(s) logically follow—(I) require a 10-year post-graduation India-service bond at admission, (II) ask those who wish to settle abroad to repay the entire government-subsidised cost of their education—without altering facts but focusing on feasibility, proportionality, and directness to the stated problem.

Given data

• Statement: A majority of students from premier Indian engineering colleges migrate to developed nations for better career prospects.
• Course I: Make all incoming students sign a bond to remain in India for at least 10 years after completing education.
• Course II: Students who intend to settle abroad should pay the full education cost that the government subsidises.

Concept / ApproachA valid course of action should be practical, proportionate, directly address the problem, and be implementable without violating basic rights or adding new unstated assumptions.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: The problem is brain drain from subsidised premier colleges.Step 2: Course I (10-year compulsory bond) is extremely restrictive, hard to monitor/enforce across borders, invites litigation, may violate freedom of occupation/movement, and risks perverse effects (e.g., deterring talent from joining). This is disproportionate to the stated problem.Step 3: Course II links subsidy to the public objective (domestic human capital). If a student explicitly opts to settle abroad, recovering the subsidy cost is a targeted, feasible, and proportionate remedy that directly addresses misuse of subsidies.

Verification / AlternativePolicy analogies (e.g., service bonds for specific public scholarships) support cost-recovery mechanisms when service expectations are not met; blanket decade-long residency obligations are typically excessive.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming any severe measure automatically “follows.” Severity does not imply suitability.
• Ignoring enforceability and proportionality while evaluating policies.

Final AnswerOnly II follows.