The correct answer is: Only argument II is strong.
Argument I is a weak argument because it does not provide any evidence to support its claim. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed, but this does not mean that there should not be a maximum limit. In fact, there are several reasons why there should be a maximum limit on the number of ministers in the Central Government.
First, a large number of ministers can lead to inefficiency and corruption. When there are too many ministers, it can be difficult to coordinate their work and ensure that they are all working towards the same goals. This can lead to duplication of effort, waste of resources, and even corruption.
Second, a large number of ministers can be expensive. Each minister has a salary and benefits, and they also have staff and offices. The cost of maintaining a large number of ministers can be a significant burden on the government budget.
Third, a large number of ministers can make it difficult for the government to function effectively. When there are too many ministers, it can be difficult for the Prime Minister to keep track of what they are all doing. This can lead to confusion and a lack of coordination.
For these reasons, there should be a maximum limit on the number of ministers in the Central Government. Argument II provides strong evidence to support this claim. It argues that the number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure. This is a sound argument because it is based on the principle of efficiency and economy.
Argument I, on the other hand, does not provide any evidence to support its claim. It simply asserts that the political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed. This is not a strong argument because it does not take into account the other factors that I have mentioned above.
In conclusion, only argument II is strong. Argument I is weak because it does not provide any evidence to support its claim.