Critical Reasoning – Stability of the council of ministers Statement: Should the council of ministers, once appointed, remain the same for the entire period between two elections? Arguments: I. No. Shuffling ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process. II. Yes. Ministers need long tenures to develop a firm hold on their portfolios.

Introduction / Context:
The question concerns governance flexibility versus fixed tenure. We judge which argument better fits democratic accountability and practical administration without assuming extra facts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cabinet reshuffles can address performance, coalition dynamics, and crises.
• Continuity has benefits, but rigidity can entrench underperformance.
• No rule requires fixed composition for an entire term.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments appeal to accountability and adaptability. An argument solely claiming tenure is necessary may be too one-sided when oversight and performance adjustments are essential in practice.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Most parliamentary systems allow reshuffles for legitimate reasons; this supports I’s strength.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• II alone overvalues tenure and neglects governance realities.
• “Both/Either/Neither” misstate relative strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming stability always outweighs performance oversight.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong