Statement: Should colleges be given the status of a university in India?…

Concept: In statement-and-argument reasoning, an argument is STRONG only if it is both important and directly relevant to the proposal, and it rests on an established fact or a substantiated consequence. An argument is WEAK if it merely assumes an advantage that it never establishes, or if it only voices a speculative apprehension about what might go wrong, offered without any support.

Application:

• Argument I claims that colleges, being closer to their students, can assess performance better, and that the degrees would therefore be more valid. But a degree's validity comes from the process on which it is conferred: at the college level a student is already judged on performance in the formal University Examinations, not on any more intimate, day-to-day acquaintance the college has with them. The argument thus assumes an advantage it never establishes, and the link it draws between proximity and validity remains vague. It is weak.

• Argument II gives no grounded reason at all; it only asserts an apprehension, that it would be Utopian to expect no nepotism or corruption. Degrees are conferred impartially, on examination performance, and the bare possibility that a power might be misused is not by itself evidence that it will be. A speculative fear of abuse, offered without support, does not clear the strong-argument bar. It too is weak.

Cross-check: Each argument must clear the bar on its own, and neither does. So no verdict that certifies one of them, and none that insists exactly one of them must prevail, can stand. The assessment consistent with both findings is: Neither I nor II is strong. This is also the standard key for this classic item.