Statement–Argument — Should pension schemes in government services be abolished? Arguments: I. Yes. Abolishing pensions will shrink applicant numbers, making it easier for common people to get government jobs. II. No. Pensions provide essential financial security to employees in old age and serve the very purpose of post-retirement sustenance.

Introduction / Context:
Pensions or post-retirement benefits serve as social insurance for public employees, stabilising income after service and helping retain a capable workforce.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Pension schemes exist to protect retirees from income shocks.
• Recruitment quality and fairness are separate concerns from retirement security.
• Policy evaluation should consider objectives and consequences.

Concept / Approach:
Assess whether each argument advances the policy goal. A strong argument should be relevant to pension’s purpose (retirement security), not merely to applicant counts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I links abolition to reduced applicants—an unintended and undesirable metric. It neither addresses retirement welfare nor workforce quality—weak.2) Argument II correctly states pensions’ core purpose: financial support in old age. It is directly relevant and normatively aligned—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems evolve from defined-benefit to defined-contribution structures, but the rationale remains retirement security.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Either/Both/Neither” mischaracterise relevance and objectives.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating pensions as recruitment throttles rather than social insurance.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.