Statement–Argument — Should people be banned from providing services to more than one firm/organisation? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce unemployment to some extent by distributing work. II. No. Such a ban would frustrate skilled professionals and reduce flexibility, causing dissatisfaction and productivity loss.

Introduction / Context:
Many sectors rely on freelancers and multi-engagement professionals. Regulating secondary employment must consider labour rights, competition, and productivity.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Unemployment is structural; bans may not create qualified workers or demand.
• Multi-employment can raise utilisation of scarce skills.
• Conflicts of interest can be managed via contracts rather than bans.

Concept / Approach:
Argument strength depends on realistic causal links and alignment with labour-market efficiency.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I assumes a ban will redistribute jobs; it ignores matching, productivity, and demand. Weak causal logic—weak.2) II highlights negative impacts on skilled labour flexibility and morale, a recognised concern—strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard practice uses non-compete, confidentiality, or hour caps where necessary, not blanket prohibitions.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They overstate I or understate II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming job “sharing” via bans increases total employment.

Final Answer:
if only argument II is strong.