Statement: Should SC/ST candidates who scored below the qualifying 40% in MBBS be selected to fill reserved medical seats? Arguments: I. Yes. Reserved seats must be filled by category candidates to meet constitutional norms. II. No. Selecting below the qualifying mark defeats the purpose of having a qualifying standard. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Admissions standards in medicine serve public safety and professional competence. Reservation addresses historic disadvantage, but qualifying thresholds ensure a minimum competency needed for patient care.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Qualifying mark is 40% in MBBS.
• The proposal is to admit candidates below this cut-off to fill reserved seats.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I conflates seat-filling with constitutional compliance. Reservation pursues access and equity, but generally within standards designed to protect professional quality. Simply “filling seats” cannot override explicit competency floors. Argument II correctly states that admitting below the qualifying mark undermines the rationale of a qualifying threshold, which exists to protect patient safety and training integrity.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• Assess I: Seat fulfillment is not the sole constitutional objective; standards remain binding unless explicitly revised. Thus I is weak.• Assess II: Preserves the integrity of minimum competency—central to medical education and public interest ⇒ strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Equity can be advanced upstream (bridge courses, preparatory programs, financial/academic support) while maintaining minimum professional thresholds, supporting II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option including I alone or with II treats quota fulfillment as trumping safety; “either”/“neither” misdiagnose the normative force of standards.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming reservation mandates selection irrespective of competence thresholds.

Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong.