Statement: Should graduation be the minimum educational qualification for entry-level jobs in public sector organisations? Arguments: I. Yes. Graduates always perform better than non-graduates due to higher education. II. No. Many cannot afford to wait for graduation yet can perform equally well at such jobs. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Setting a universal graduation requirement for all entry-level public-sector posts affects merit access, equity, and job–skill matching. Strong arguments must link qualification norms to job competency rather than broad generalisations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Entry-level roles vary widely (clerical, field, technical support).
• Competence can be signalled via tests, certifications, or vocational training.

Concept / Approach:
Judge whether the arguments provide principled reasons concerning capability and fairness.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I claims graduates “always perform better,” which is an overstatement. Performance depends on role requirements, aptitude, and training. For some roles, 12th-pass plus skills may suffice. Hence I is weak.Argument II highlights that blanket graduation norms can unfairly exclude capable candidates who cannot afford longer education yet meet competency through alternative pathways. This speaks to equity and appropriate selection design (aptitude tests, skill trials), making II a stronger and relevant objection to a universal rule.

Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced policy sets role-specific qualifications and evaluation tests, not a one-size-fits-all graduation bar.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I” rests on a sweeping, unproven claim. “Either” treats a weak generalisation as comparable to a principled fairness/fit critique. “Neither” ignores II’s policy relevance. “Both” is invalid.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing educational attainment with job readiness; ignoring vocational routes and on-the-job training.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong.