Statement–Argument — Should government offices offer jobs only to the wards of government employees? Arguments: I. No. It denies opportunity to many deserving candidates and may harm merit in the long run. II. No. Such a system violates equality; the State has obligations to all citizens, not just to employees’ families.

Introduction / Context:The proposal creates hereditary-style preference in public employment. Strong arguments will appeal to meritocracy and constitutional equality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Argues merit and long-run efficiency losses.
• II: Argues equality principles and universal public responsibility.

Concept / Approach:Public-sector hiring is expected to be fair, competitive, and open. Excluding non-wards violates basic fairness and undermines trust and performance.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is strong: narrowing the pool reduces talent quality and legitimacy.2) II is strong: equal access is a foundational constitutional value for public jobs.3) Thus, both arguments are strong and point to rejection of the proposal.

Verification / Alternative check:Most civil-service systems rely on open competition and transparent criteria.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing one underplays the other essential principle; “either” miscasts complementary reasons as mutually exclusive.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing employee welfare with public hiring norms.

Final Answer:If both I and II are strong.