Statement–Argument — Should the vacation of central government employees be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. More working days can speed up file disposal and service delivery, benefiting citizens through shorter turnaround times. II. Yes. Vacation makes employees lazy and reduces their stamina for long hours.

Introduction / Context:
Public administration performance is assessed by timeliness, accessibility, and citizen satisfaction. The question asks whether reducing vacation would improve outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Backlogs and pending cases can delay public services.
• Argument I claims a direct link between additional working days and improved throughput.
• Argument II attributes laziness and low stamina to vacations, a value-laden and weakly evidenced assertion.

Concept / Approach:
Policy arguments should be evidence-oriented and aligned with service objectives. Throughput improvements from added working time, better process design, and digitisation align with measurable outcomes. Character judgments about employees are not sound policy grounds.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is strong: Increasing productive hours can reduce queues and pending files when paired with workflow and digital reforms.2) II is weak: It relies on stereotypes rather than operational metrics; rest can actually improve productivity and reduce burnout.3) Therefore, only Argument I is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Service-level agreements (SLAs) and e-governance initiatives often improve turnaround irrespective of staff “stamina,” supporting the relevance of I over II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II/either/both” misclassify II; “neither” ignores I’s operational validity.

Common Pitfalls:
Using pejorative framing instead of measurable performance levers.

Final Answer:
If only argument I is strong.