Statement: Should knowledge of Hindi be made compulsory for all employees in public sector organisations? Arguments: I. Yes. It is necessary for interacting with people from educationally backward strata of society. II. No. It is not necessary for every employee to know Hindi. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Language policy in workplaces must balance service delivery, inclusion, and role requirements. A strong argument should reflect role specificity and feasibility, not stereotypes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public sector roles vary from back office to field facing.
• India is multilingual and service populations differ by region.

Concept / Approach:
Assess which argument recognizes operational realities and proportionality.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Asserts compulsion based on a generalized description of beneficiaries. It stereotypes and ignores role diversity and regional languages. Weak.Argument II: Recognizes that not every role requires the same language skills. Language requirements should be role and region specific. Strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Policies often set minimum requirements aligned to job descriptions and allow training support instead of blanket compulsion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I alone is overbroad; either or both misclassify; neither ignores the sensible nuance in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Imposing one language universally; overlooking local language needs.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong.