Statement: Should doctors and engineers be banned from appearing in the civil services examination? Arguments: I. No. Banning them would deprive the civil services of some of the best talent available to work for public welfare. II. Yes. Taxpayers subsidise medical and engineering education; switching to civil services wastes that expenditure. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

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:

• Civil services aim to recruit capable generalists and specialists for governance.
• Doctors and engineers often possess analytical and operational skills valuable to administration.

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.