Arguments evaluation (government transfers of clerical staff across cities): Should the routine practice of transferring clerical-cadre employees between government offices in different cities be stopped? Compare the arguments—(I) No: transfers are a standard administrative tool and should continue; (II) Yes: transfers cause high public expenditure and widespread inconvenience relative to benefits—judging necessity, cost–benefit, and policy intent.

Given data

• Issue: Whether to stop inter-city transfers of clerical staff in government.
• Argument I (No): Transfers are routine administrative matters that support staffing balance, rotation, and integrity.
• Argument II (Yes): Transfers entail much cost and inconvenience compared to benefits.

Concept/ApproachA strong argument should connect to the institutional purpose. Transfers serve legitimate aims (manpower distribution, exposure, preventing local capture). Cost/inconvenience claims require evidence and do not by themselves invalidate the tool.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I highlights an essential administrative function; as a principle-level argument, it is relevant and sufficient—strong.Step 2: II is qualitative and unsubstantiated; without data or alternatives (e.g., partial limits), it is weak as a ground to stop transfers entirely.

Verification/AlternativeGovernments commonly use transfers to meet service needs and ensure probity; reforms can reduce undue hardship without abolishing transfers.

Common pitfalls

• Arguing for total abolition due to solvable frictions (timing, tenure norms).

Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.