Statement: Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished? Arguments:…

Concept: In Statement–Argument reasoning, an argument is judged ‘strong’ only if it is directly relevant to the statement and points to a specific, significant consequence — not a vague, generalised, or merely plausible-sounding claim.

Application: Argument I links a concrete mechanism (teachers holding personal grading power in internal assessment) to a concrete harm (favouritism); abolishing internal assessment removes exactly that mechanism, so the argument is directly relevant and substantive — it is strong. Argument II claims teaching faculty will ‘lose control’ over students, but classroom authority comes from ongoing instruction, not from awarding internal marks; removing an assessment format does not remove teachers from the classroom, so this argument does not follow from the stated change — it is vague, not strong.

Cross-check: If Argument II's logic held, removing any teacher-administered component would automatically weaken control — but a teacher's day-to-day instructional authority is independent of which assessment format is used, which confirms Argument II fails to hold specifically for this change. Argument I's chain (grading power → opportunity for favouritism → removed once assessment is abolished) is direct and specific, confirming it does hold.

• ‘Only argument II is strong’ — wrongly assumes teaching control depends on the internal-assessment process rather than on classroom instruction itself.

• ‘Either I or II is strong’ — treats the two arguments as an either/or ambiguity, when each can in fact be assessed independently on its own relevance and weight.

• ‘Neither I nor II is strong’ — applies too strict a bar, rejecting an argument unless it fully and completely resolves the issue, rather than asking only whether it is relevant and significant.

Result: Only Argument I meets the bar for a strong argument.