Statement–Argument — Should the number of holidays for Government employees be reduced to only five per year? Arguments: I) Yes; excessive holidays cut total working hours and can adversely affect national productivity and service delivery. II) No; employees need periodic rest to recover from heavy workloads and maintain long-run productivity. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Public-sector holiday policy must balance service continuity, citizen access, employee welfare, and macro productivity. The question proposes a drastic reduction to five holidays per year and asks which arguments are strong.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fewer holidays may raise available workdays, improving throughput if capacity is binding.
• Insufficient rest can degrade morale, increase burnout, and reduce quality, offsetting quantitative gains.
• Service continuity can also be achieved via staggered rosters without uniformly slashing holidays.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong in highlighting system-level productivity and service concerns. Argument II is also strong, emphasizing human capital sustainability. In practice, optimal policy typically balances both (e.g., moderate holidays, staggered staffing).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Organizations often find that extreme reductions harm quality; moderated approaches (flex days, staggered leave) perform better, supporting the validity of both arguments.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II” ignores the countervailing legitimate objective; “Neither” dismisses two clear, relevant concerns.

Common Pitfalls:Equating more days at work with net productivity irrespective of fatigue and morale.

Final Answer:if either argument I or II is strong.