Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The question examines eligibility norms for civil services. A strong argument should align with public-interest goals—merit, capacity, and institutional effectiveness—rather than narrow gatekeeping.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Argument I emphasizes talent maximization for public welfare—directly aligned with the mission of civil services and hence strong. Argument II presumes that a subsidised education must be “used” only in that profession; however, citizens repay society in multiple ways (public administration, health policy design, infrastructure oversight). The argument also ignores service bonds, fee structures, or clawbacks that could address specific cost concerns without a blanket ban.
Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Positively connects diverse expertise to better governance ⇒ strong.• II: Narrow, punitive framing; fails to establish that switching reduces net social benefit or that bans are superior to alternative policies ⇒ weak.
Verification / Alternative check:
Where subsidy misuse is a concern, targeted remedies (bond service, repayment) exist without excluding a talent pool.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II mistakes fiscal frustration for optimal recruitment policy; “either”/“neither” ignore I’s clear public-interest basis.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating field-specific education with lifelong obligation to a single career track.
Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.
Discussion & Comments