Statement: Considering increasing life expectancy in India, should the retirement age for government jobs be raised? Arguments: I. Yes. Many other countries raised retirement ages long ago. II. Yes. Lakhs of employees actually demand it. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Retirement-age policy impacts pension burdens, productivity, intergenerational employment balance, and workforce planning. A strong argument must link the proposal to such policy objectives, not merely cite external analogies or popularity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Life expectancy has risen, but healthy life expectancy, job nature, and unemployment also matter.
• Government workforce size and fiscal constraints are relevant.

Concept / Approach:Evaluate whether each argument is policy-relevant and evidence-oriented rather than an appeal to trend or numbers.

Step-by-Step Solution:Argument I: “Other countries did it.” Cross-country emulation without context is a weak analogy. Countries differ in demographics, labor markets, and pension systems; this does not prove raising retirement age is right for India.Argument II: “Large employee demand.” Popular demand does not establish policy merit. A decision should weigh fiscal sustainability, promotion bottlenecks, and job creation for youth, none of which are addressed here.

Verification / Alternative check:A strong “Yes” would argue improved longevity with adequate health, skill relevance, and fiscal benefits; a strong “No” would cite youth unemployment and productivity patterns. Neither argument provides such reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option endorsing I or II mistakes appeal to authority (other countries) or popularity (employee demand) for a substantive basis.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming policy transferability without conditions; equating stakeholder preference with public interest.

Final Answer:Neither I nor II is strong.