Statement–Argument — Should there be legislation to restrict the number of Ministers? Argument: I) Yes; in some states, defections were engineered to gain majorities, causing cabinet sizes to balloon beyond sensible limits and distorting governance. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Cabinet size caps are intended to curb political opportunism and reduce fiscal waste. The argument provided connects excessive ministerial appointments with instability arising from defections, a recognized governance problem.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Large cabinets can be used as patronage instruments to secure support.
• Defections may be incentivized by the prospect of ministerial positions.
• Legislated caps can limit this tool, promoting stability and fiscal prudence.

Concept / Approach:We judge whether the argument is relevant, specific, and not a mere assertion. The line of reasoning ties a concrete policy (cap) to an actual pathology (defections/patronage).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Many jurisdictions limit cabinet size as a percentage of the legislature, aligning with the argument’s logic.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:No competing argument is offered; “neither” would ignore a clear, relevant reasoning path.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming caps alone end defections; they mitigate, not eliminate, the problem.

Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.