Higher education access — Should any graduate enter any post-graduate course of their choice? Statement: Should all students graduating in any discipline, who desire post-graduation in a subject of their choice, be allowed to enrol? Arguments: I. Yes. Students are the best judges of their capabilities; there should not be restrictions. II. No. Relevant prerequisites in graduation are needed for entry to certain post-graduate courses. III. No. Institutes are limited and cannot accommodate everyone in any subject they choose.

Introduction / Context:
This item probes admissions policy trade-offs: autonomy and aspiration (I) versus academic prerequisites (II) and capacity constraints (III). In argument tests, more than one side can be strong when each captures a valid and significant policy dimension.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Diverse backgrounds may enrich learning, and mature students can judge fit (I).
• Many programs require subject foundations and competencies (II).
• Institutions have finite seats, faculty, and labs (III).

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate each argument’s intrinsic policy relevance. It is possible for apparently conflicting arguments to be strong if they highlight legitimate, coexisting constraints and goals—autonomy, academic standards, and capacity.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Well-designed systems allow conditional admission with bridge courses, aptitude tests, and seat caps—simultaneously respecting I, II, and III.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• None strong: ignores substantive considerations on all sides.
• Only I and II / Only I and III: omit an equally strong dimension.
• None of these: unnecessary, as all three are defensible.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming policy must choose only one principle. In reality, admissions balance autonomy, standards, and capacity.

Final Answer:
All are strong