Statement: Should religious leave for Central Government employees be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. Religious leave constitutes a large share of total leave (claimed over 150 days), aggravating chronic backlogs of pending work. II. No. India is a secular country. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Leave policy should balance employee rights and service delivery. Strong arguments must connect leave volume to operational impact rather than invoke unrelated constitutional labels.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim: religious leave is a large component and fuels pending work.
• “Secularism” as a principle does not prescribe leave quantities.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is operational: it links leave magnitude to productivity and backlog—policy-relevant and hence strong (assuming the magnitude is non-trivial). Argument II states a constitutional value but does not establish why secularism requires generous religious leave or blocks rationalization; thus it is weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Addresses efficiency and service continuity—key policy concerns ⇒ strong.• II: Non sequitur; secularism concerns state neutrality among religions, not the quantum of leave days ⇒ weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even a secular state can calibrate leave for operational effectiveness while remaining neutral across faiths.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including II assumes a constitutional principle dictates leave volume; it does not.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing neutrality with higher entitlements.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.