Statement & Argument — Should there be a jumbo-size ministry in the Government? Arguments: I. No; a very large council of ministers inflates public expenditure and administrative overhead. II. Yes; the number and diversity of portfolios require many ministers to function effectively.

Introduction / Context:
This Statement–Argument item asks whether a “jumbo-size” ministry is desirable. A strong argument should present a policy-relevant reason that can independently justify a “Yes” or “No,” such as fiscal prudence or functional adequacy. Both given arguments are evaluated for relevance, sufficiency, and general applicability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Public administration incurs costs (salaries, offices, logistics) that scale with the number of ministers.
• Workload and specialization across portfolios can motivate larger teams for effective oversight.
• No constitutional cap or specific numerical benchmark is provided in the stem.

Concept / Approach:
An argument is strong if it appeals to a legitimate governance objective. Controlling expenditure is a valid objective (Argument I). Ensuring adequate ministerial coverage for numerous portfolios is also a valid objective (Argument II). Because each can stand alone as a reasonable policy ground—albeit pulling in opposite directions—either could be accepted as strong depending on priorities.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I (Cost control): Larger cabinets increase recurrent spending and coordination complexity—policy-relevant and strong.Assess II (Functional need): Many portfolios may require dedicated leadership to avoid overload—also policy-relevant and strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced approach might set rational size norms or merge allied portfolios. That possibility does not invalidate either argument’s core logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” or “Only II” would dismiss an independently valid counter-argument. “Neither” ignores clear relevance of both.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a fixed “right size” without context; ignoring trade-offs between efficiency and coverage.

Final Answer:
Either Argument I or II is strong.