Statement: Should there be only a single uniform rate of income tax, irrespective of the level of income? Arguments: I. Yes. A uniform rate will substantially reduce the work of officials in the income tax department. II. No. A uniform rate will reduce government tax collection to a large extent.

Introduction / Context:
This question is about tax policy and asks whether a single uniform rate of income tax should apply to all income levels. A strong argument must address core policy goals such as fairness, revenue generation and practical feasibility. Minor administrative conveniences alone are usually not enough to justify a major structural change like altering the tax rate system.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Should there be only a uniform rate of income tax, regardless of how high or low the income is?
Argument I: Yes. A uniform rate will substantially reduce the workload of income tax officials.
Argument II: No. A uniform rate will reduce government tax collection to a large extent.

Concept / Approach:
We evaluate each argument by asking: does it talk about an important effect of the policy, is it logically reasonable, and is it directly related to the decision? Arguments about efficiency or revenue can be strong. However, arguments that focus on a minor convenience and ignore larger consequences become weak in comparison.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Examine Argument I: It claims that officials’ workload will be substantially reduced by a single uniform rate. While reduced administrative complexity is a benefit, tax systems are designed primarily to raise revenue fairly and effectively, not to make life easiest for officials. The argument does not consider fairness between rich and poor taxpayers or the effect on revenue. Therefore, Argument I focuses only on a secondary aspect and is not strong enough to justify or oppose the policy on its own. Examine Argument II: It states that a uniform rate will reduce government tax collection to a large extent. Tax collection is a primary objective of an income tax system. A substantial reduction in revenue would directly affect government spending on public services and development. If a uniform rate significantly reduces total tax revenue, this becomes a strong reason against such a change. Thus, Argument II is clearly a strong argument against the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:
In progressive tax systems, higher incomes are usually taxed at higher rates. If this is replaced by a single lower rate acceptable to lower and middle incomes, the contribution from the highest income groups usually drops sharply. That matches the essence of Argument II and shows why it is serious and relevant. Administrative simplification from Argument I, while beneficial, does not outweigh major revenue loss concerns.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only Argument I as strong ignores the central importance of government revenue.
Saying both arguments are strong would incorrectly treat a minor administrative advantage as equally important as a major loss in revenue.
Claiming that neither is strong is wrong because Argument II clearly addresses a key policy impact.
Saying the impact cannot be assessed ignores the straightforward logic behind revenue reduction under a uniform rate.

Common Pitfalls:
A common error is to be impressed by the word “substantially” in Argument I and treat workload reduction as the main goal. Another pitfall is to forget that tax policy decisions must consider fairness and revenue first. Students should learn to distinguish between primary objectives (like revenue and equity) and secondary considerations (like convenience).

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct option is If only argument II is strong.