Critical reasoning — incentives for rural government postings: Should government jobs in rural areas carry additional incentives, considering the claim that incentives are essential to attract personnel versus the assertion that rural areas are already cheaper, healthier, and less complex than cities and therefore need no extra incentives?

Given data

• Statement: Should rural government jobs have more incentives?
• Argument I (Yes): Incentives are essential to attract/retain staff in rural areas.
• Argument II (No): Rural areas are cheaper/healthier/less complex; so no extra incentives.

Concept/Approach (incentives address staffing frictions)
Strong arguments speak to real recruitment/retention challenges (distance, hardship, limited amenities). Claiming rural life is easier is a generalisation and does not address staffing incentives.

Step-by-Step evaluation
1) Argument I: Relevant and pragmatic—hardship allowances/incentives correct imbalance ⇒ strong.2) Argument II: Overgeneralised and dismissive; cost of living/healthyness do not capture professional and family constraints ⇒ weak.

Verification/Alternative
Sectors like health/education commonly use rural allowances to tackle vacancies—consistent with Argument I.

Common pitfalls
Assuming rural desirability universally; ignoring real access and service-gap issues.

Final Answer
Only argument I is strong.