Statement–Argument (Mandatory Rural Service for Medical Graduates): Statement: Should government service in rural areas for at least two years after completing graduation be made compulsory for students of medicine? Arguments: I) Yes, every qualified doctor has a social duty to serve rural populations and contribute to their upliftment. II) No, such a rule unfairly targets only medical graduates, who already contribute during internship; compulsion should not single out one profession. Select the strongest evaluation.

Introduction / Context:
Compulsory rural postings for fresh medical graduates are frequently debated as a policy tool to address human-resource gaps in underserved areas. Statement–Argument items ask which arguments are “strong,” i.e., decision-relevant, specific, and grounded in plausible consequences or principles.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Large rural–urban disparities in healthcare access exist.
• Medical internships already include supervised service components.
• Compulsion aimed at a single profession can raise fairness and implementation questions.

Concept / Approach:
A strong “Yes” argument should connect compulsion to public interest and service delivery; a strong “No” argument should highlight fairness, proportionality, or feasibility concerns. If both sides present legitimate, policy-salient mechanisms, “either I or II” can be correct.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I (Duty/Upliftment): Ties directly to public purpose—reducing rural doctor shortages and improving equity—hence strong.Assess II (Targeting/Fairness): Flags discrimination and the problem of singling out one cohort; implementation may cause morale/brain-drain issues—decision-relevant and strong.Conclusion: Both present legitimate, policy-weighty considerations; depending on priority (equity vs autonomy/fairness), either can be judged strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Hybrid designs (bonded scholarships, incentives, choice-based postings) show policymaking acknowledges both concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” ignores fairness; “Only II” ignores service equity; “Neither” undervalues both; “Both” suggests simultaneous adoption rather than alternative strength.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming duty alone overrides proportionality; assuming fairness alone negates public-interest mandates.

Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.