Statement–Argument — Should there be a maximum limit on the number of Union ministers? Arguments: I) No; the ruling party must be free to decide cabinet size. II) Yes; cap the number (e.g., a set percentage of seats) to contain unnecessary public expenditure and promote efficiency. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The issue is whether to legally cap cabinet size. Strong arguments should refer to governance quality and fiscal prudence rather than unconstrained political discretion.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Large cabinets can increase expenditure and coordination costs.
• Setting proportional caps provides predictability and reduces incentives for excessive expansion.
• Political “freedom” alone is not a governance principle when public funds are involved.

Concept / Approach:
Argument II is strong because it proposes a rule-based cap linked to public-interest outcomes (cost control, efficiency). Argument I is weak: mere discretion is not a sufficient reason; institutions routinely place limits to protect public interest.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Countries often legislate such caps to discourage patronage-driven expansion; this aligns with II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” overstates I; “Neither” ignores II’s merits.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating political convenience with public-interest policy.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.