Statements: Should there be reservation of jobs in the organizations in the private sector also, similar to public sector undertakings in India? Arguments: I. Yes. This would provide development opportunities to weaker sections and reduce the gap between affluent groups and the downtrodden. II. No. The private sector does not receive government assistance and therefore should not be burdened with such policies. III. No. Nowhere else in the world is such a practice followed. IV. No. Private sector managements would not agree to such compulsion. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument or arguments.

Introduction / Context:
The policy question weighs social justice and affirmative action against private enterprise autonomy. A strong argument must connect to concrete public interest, feasibility, or legal-economic rationale rather than mere assertions about opinions or foreign practice.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Affirmative action aims to expand access for historically disadvantaged groups.
• Private firms operate without the same fiscal support or mandate framework as public sector units.
• Comparative international practice is diverse and not determinative by itself.

Concept / Approach:
Assess each argument on policy relevance and strength: distributive justice, market functioning, and enforceability. Avoid appeals to popularity or managerial preference.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. States a direct public interest goal: narrowing structural inequality by expanding opportunity.II: Strong. Notes a governance boundary: absent state support, imposing quotas may be distortionary; autonomy concerns are relevant in private law.III: Weak. Appeal to what other countries do is not a decisive policy test; contexts differ.IV: Weak. Managerial reluctance is not a normative reason; regulations are not contingent on voluntary agreement.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems seek middle paths: diversity reporting, incentives, or targeted skilling rather than blanket mandates, reflecting the tension captured by I and II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Including III or IV elevates weak appeals; single I ignores private autonomy concerns; single II ignores equity aims.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming international uniformity; treating management preference as policy proof.

Final Answer:
Only I and II are strong