In the question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and
II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument. 'Strong' arguments are those which are important and directly address the statement. 'Weak' arguments are those which are of minor importance and may not be directly related to the statement or may focus on some trivial aspect of the statement. Statement: Should governments mandate a four-day workweek across major corporate sectors to boost employee well-being and reduce workplace burnout? Arguments :
I. Yes, because prioritizing worker mental health and reducing chronic burnout improves overall workforce retention and long-term productivity.
II. No, because a mandatory reduction in working days could cause operational disruptions in customer-facing industries and increase wage costs for continuous operations.

Argument I is strong: It addresses the statement from a social and occupational welfare perspective. It focuses on critical issues—mental health, burnout prevention, and worker retention—which directly impact national labor quality and organizational sustainability. In formal logic, arguments grounded in workforce well-being and sustained productivity are considered strong. Argument II is strong: It addresses the statement from an economic and operational feasibility perspective. It highlights concrete business challenges—potential service disruptions in 24/7 client-facing sectors and escalating operational costs to cover non-working days. Arguments evaluating realistic administrative burdens and operational constraints are considered strong. Conclusion: Since both arguments present valid, substantial, and non-trivial justifications addressing two distinct, vital facets of the policy proposal (employee health vs. operational/economic feasibility), both arguments are strong.