Statement & Argument — Should computer knowledge be essential for office employment? Arguments: I. Yes, computers are state-of-the-art devices. II. No, office work is not yet fully computerized.

Introduction / Context:
Hiring prerequisites should be justified by job requirements, not by generic technology admiration or lagging adoption claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Different office roles require different levels of digital literacy.
• Argument strength depends on role-specific necessity or policy rationale.
• Neither argument mentions role fit or transitional training.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument would say: for roles that routinely use computers, essential knowledge improves productivity and accuracy; for others, essential may be excessive. As framed, I and II are generic and not policy-sound.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I: Calling computers state of the art does not prove necessity for every office job. Weak.2) Argument II: Incomplete adoption is not a reason to avoid capability building, nor does it address role needs. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the arguments were role-tied (for example, data entry, accounting), I could become strong. If II argued for phased training rather than exclusion, it might gain strength. As given, both are weak.

Final Answer:
Neither Argument I nor II is strong.