Should government jobs that are located in rural areas carry more incentives than similar jobs in big cities? Arguments: 1. Yes, because additional incentives are essential for attracting government employees to work in rural areas. 2. No, because rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities, so extra incentives are not necessary.

Introduction / Context:
This question concerns incentives for government employees working in rural areas. One argument says extra incentives are needed to attract staff, while the other claims rural life is already better and does not need additional rewards.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Government jobs in rural areas should have more incentives.
• Argument 1: Yes, incentives are essential to attract employees.
• Argument 2: No, rural areas are already cheaper and healthier, so no extra incentives are needed.
• We assume that vacancies in rural postings are often hard to fill.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument is based on actual problems and realistic solutions. If employees avoid rural postings, incentives are a practical way to encourage them. Argument 2 simply assumes rural living is attractive without considering factors like lack of facilities, schools, hospitals and connectivity.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It directly addresses the staffing problem by suggesting financial or other incentives as a tool to attract people to rural posts. Step 2: This is a realistic administrative approach, so argument 1 is strong. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It claims rural areas are already cheaper and healthier, but ignores reasons why many employees still prefer urban jobs, such as better facilities and career growth. Step 4: Therefore, argument 2 is weak and does not convincingly oppose the need for incentives.

Verification / Alternative check:
In practice, governments often offer extra allowances for difficult or remote postings. This supports the reasoning in argument 1.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that treat argument 2 as strong overlook gaps in its reasoning. The option that both arguments are strong is wrong because they do not have equal merit. The option that neither is strong is incorrect as argument 1 clearly provides a sound reason. The option that we cannot judge from these arguments is unnecessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes accept general statements like "rural life is healthy" at face value without checking if they address the real staffing problem.

Final Answer:
Thus, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.