Statement–Argument (Preferential Hiring for Wards): Statement: Should government offices offer jobs preferentially to wards of government employees? Arguments: I) No, it denies opportunities to many deserving individuals and harms government quality in the long run. II) No, it violates equality principles; the government owes fairness to all citizens. Choose which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:
Public-sector recruitment should uphold merit and equality. Both efficiency (quality of hires) and fairness (equal opportunity) are core objectives, so arguments addressing each can be simultaneously strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument I: Nepotistic preference narrows the talent pool, risking poorer performance and long-run institutional cost.
• Argument II: Preferential treatment breaches equal opportunity principles in public employment.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments identify policy goals and credible mechanisms. I targets effectiveness/merit; II targets constitutional fairness—both directly relevant.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Reduced competition ⇒ potential quality loss ⇒ strong.Evaluate II: Principle of equality before the law and equal access ⇒ strong.Therefore, both are strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Most public hiring frameworks require open competition—evidence these concerns are foundational.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one ignores the other's independent validity; “either/neither” misclassifies.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming employee benefit schemes justify core recruitment exceptions.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are strong.