The lure of better paid jobs abroad pulls most of the recent post-graduates from highly sought after, government subsidized, state-of-the-art institutes of technology. This brain-drain amounts to millions of dollars of loss to the country, an amount the economy cannot afford to lose year after year. To control this out-flux, the government proposes to make it mandatory for such a student to refund the subsidized part of his fees if he/she decides work on foreign shores.
Which of the following works best to support the viability of the government’s proposal?
(A) It is the primary duty of the government of any country to ensure that the financial resources of the country are most optimally utilized.
- Gives reason why government is proposing to make it mandatory for student to refund subsidized amount, but does not strengthen the proposal.
(B) Major recruiters abroad have been forced to adhere to their governments’ policies that are less favourable towards the hiring of non-natives.
- Indicates that there will not be brain drain but doesn't strengthen the plan.
(C) One of the constitutional duties of a citizen is to strive towards the upliftment and development of his/her country.
- True fact, but how does it strengthen the plan is not clear.
(D) Though globalisation has opened the doors for Multinationals in the country, it has not brought around the desired impact on the salary levels of the employees at these companies.
- true but not relevant to argument.
(E) Most students who qualify for admissions to the government subsidized institutes come from financially weak backgrounds and could not have afforded the education without the subsidy.
- that means most students at government subsidized institutions are taking subsidy,therefore government's plan to recover subsidy from students will work.
Posted from my mobile device