RAS question
Statement: Should all government offices adopt a four-day work week? Argument I: Yes, it improves work-life balance and employee productivity. Argument II: No, it will reduce the number of working hours, delaying public services. Which argument(s) is/are strong?
Correct answer: (C) Both I and II are strong.
Both arguments are strong because a four-day work week can improve work-life balance and productivity in some settings, while government offices must also guard against reduced service availability and delays.
Explanation
Argument I is strong because the Parliamentary Library review reports that four-day work week trials have produced benefits for work-life balance and organisational efficiency, and the Iceland public-sector trial maintained or improved productivity and service provision. These results support the claim that shorter-week arrangements can help employees without automatically weakening outcomes. Argument II is also strong because implementation is not one-size-fits-all: public services such as schools and hospitals raise coverage questions, and some sectors may need extra staffing or face constraints. In a government-office context, reduced working hours could therefore delay services if coverage is not planned. The issue is not whether the policy is universally good or bad, but whether both arguments raise relevant, practical considerations.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) It accepts the work-life balance and productivity argument but ignores the real service-delivery concern for government offices that must meet public needs.
- (B) It recognises possible delays from fewer working hours but dismisses evidence that some shorter-week trials maintained or improved productivity and service provision.
- (D) It is wrong because both arguments are relevant: one is supported by trial outcomes, and the other by practical coverage concerns in public services.
Concept
This tests the RAS reasoning topic of evaluating strong and weak arguments, where a strong argument must be relevant and practically connected to the statement. It recurs because administrative decisions often require weighing welfare gains against service-delivery constraints.
