Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four…

Concept: In this statement-argument format, a "strong" argument follows directly from the statement, points to a real and verifiable effect of the proposed action, and would matter on its own in deciding the issue. A "weak" argument may sound plausible but is speculative, addresses only the practical feasibility of implementing the policy rather than its merit, or names a broad, unquantifiable side benefit instead of a direct justification.

Application: Testing each argument against this standard for the statement on making education compulsory up to age 14:

• Eradicating forced child employment: weak. Compulsory schooling does not by itself guarantee an end to child labour — enforcement gaps and economic pressure on families remain — so this is a hoped-for indirect effect, not a direct justification for the policy.

• Making the entire population educated: strong. This is exactly what compulsory schooling achieves — it follows directly from the policy and stands on its own as a justification, without depending on any unproven side effect.

• Inadequate infrastructure: weak. This objects to how easy the policy is to implement, not to whether education should be compulsory — a resource constraint is a planning problem, not a reason the goal itself is undesirable.

• Raising the standard of living: weak. This is a broad, long-term, largely unquantifiable outcome that almost any welfare policy could claim; it does not follow specifically or directly from making schooling compulsory.

Cross-check: any option that also credits the forced-employment argument, the infrastructure objection, or the standard-of-living claim as strong is crediting an indirect, speculative, or feasibility-only point that fails the strong-argument test above.

Result: only the argument about educating the entire population survives as strong, so the option that keeps just that one argument as strong is correct.