Arguments evaluation (cap on the number of Union ministers): Should there be a maximum limit for ministers in the Central Government? Judge—(I) No: the ruling party should be free to decide the number; (II) Yes: cap the number as a percentage of parliamentary seats to avoid unnecessary expenditure—using criteria of public interest, checks on patronage, and fiscal prudence.

Given data

• Question: Whether to impose a cap on cabinet size.
• Argument I: Opposes limits on grounds of political freedom.
• Argument II: Supports a cap to curb unnecessary expenditure and patronage.

Concept / Approach
A strong argument ties cabinet size to governance quality and fiscal responsibility. Unfettered discretion can promote inefficiency; a reasonable cap aligns with public interest.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: II provides a concrete rationale (cost control, discipline), hence strong.Step 2: I appeals to partisan freedom but ignores public finance and efficiency; freedom is not absolute in public office design—weak.

Verification / Alternative
Capping ministerial posts is a common reform to discourage oversized cabinets and reduce waste.

Common pitfalls

• Equating political discretion with best governance outcomes.

Final Answer
Only argument II is strong.