Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument. Statement : Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives? Arguments : I. Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants there. II. No. Rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities. So ? Why offer extra incentives!

The correct answer is: Only argument I is strong.

Argument I is strong because it provides evidence that incentives are necessary to attract government servants to rural areas. The argument states that rural areas are often seen as less desirable places to live than urban areas, and that this makes it difficult to attract qualified government servants to these areas. The argument then goes on to state that incentives, such as higher salaries or better benefits, could help to make rural government jobs more attractive.

Argument II is weak because it does not provide any evidence that incentives are not necessary to attract government servants to rural areas. The argument simply states that rural areas are already cheaper, healthier, and less complex than big cities. However, this does not mean that people are necessarily willing to live in rural areas. In fact, many people prefer to live in urban areas, even if they are more expensive and complex. Additionally, the argument does not address the fact that rural areas often have a shortage of qualified government servants. This shortage could be due to a number of factors, such as the lack of job opportunities, the lack of amenities, or the perception that rural areas are less desirable places to live.

In conclusion, only argument I is strong. Argument II is weak because it does not provide any evidence that incentives are not necessary to attract government servants to rural areas.