Multiple choice

Private suppliers of education are performing far better than government ones. But Amartya Sen argues for banning private tuitions and non-government schools and states that banning private schools will improve government schools in the long run. Private tuitions must be banned because they give the rich an edge, hence making the poor suffer. If we want to see our government schools in a better shape; we simply need to adhere to Sen's suggestions.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument for banning private tuitions?

  1. Ban on private tutorship will hinder growth of students who can otherwise progress well.

  2. The government should first take steps to improve the quality of tutorship in government schools.

  3. Enforcing such bans would be a serious violation of fundamental rights of private suppliers of education.

  4. Private suppliers of education provide competition and banning them would leave the field free for government schools that would further compromise the quality of education.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

(4) Why does the argument seek a ban? Because it promotes inequality and stands in the way of improvement in the quality of education in government schools. Options (1) and (5) will still promote the inequality. (3) does not weaken the basic tenet. (2) lies in future and the results are unpredictable. What is predictable is (4); it may not take the poor up, but will bring the rich down, and no improvement will be brought about.

Keep practicing — related questions