Should the railways immediately stop issuing free travel passes to all of their employees? Arguments: 1. No, because railway employees have the highest right to travel free on the trains of their own organisation. 2. Yes, because stopping free passes will save money that can be used to provide better facilities for passengers.

Introduction / Context:
This problem belongs to the statement and argument category in logical reasoning. It deals with a policy question about whether railways should stop issuing free travel passes to employees. One argument opposes the move on the basis of employee rights, and the other supports it citing better facilities for passengers.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Railways should immediately stop issuing free passes to all employees.
• Argument 1: No, employees have the highest right to travel free on trains of their own organisation.
• Argument 2: Yes, savings from stopping free passes can be used to provide better facilities.
• We assume that railway resources are limited and must be used efficiently in public interest.

Concept / Approach:
When evaluating arguments, we check whether they are objective, broad based and aligned with public welfare. An argument that is based only on privilege without wider social benefit is usually weak. An argument that connects the policy to improved services for customers is often stronger because public service organisations serve citizens first.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine argument 1. It is based purely on the idea of a special right for employees. It does not consider financial health of railways or passenger welfare. Step 2: Because public utilities are meant primarily for passengers, giving absolute priority to employee privileges is not a balanced approach. So argument 1 is weak. Step 3: Examine argument 2. It links stopping free passes to saving money and then using those savings to improve facilities. Step 4: This is a logical cause and effect chain and focuses on better services for the public, so argument 2 is a strong argument in favour of the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine you are a policy maker. You would prefer reasons that improve efficiency and public service. Argument 2 clearly does that, while argument 1 is emotional and narrow.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option "Only argument 1 is strong" is wrong because argument 1 ignores wider public interest. Option "Both arguments 1 and 2 are strong" is wrong because they are not equally valid. Option "Neither argument 1 nor 2 is strong" is wrong because argument 2 is clearly reasonable. The option about insufficient information is not correct because we can reasonably judge the relative strength of these arguments.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to give too much importance to employee benefits in public enterprises while ignoring that such organisations exist mainly to serve the public efficiently and fairly.

Final Answer:
The strong argument is only argument 2, so the correct option is the one that selects argument 2 alone as strong.