Statement: Should there be reservation for the very poor among the upper castes? Arguments: I. Yes. The purpose of reservation is to uplift weaker sections, which can include the very poor among upper castes. II. No. The move will divide upper castes and harm the existing social structure. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
Reservation policy is justified by uplift of disadvantaged sections. A strong argument must tie eligibility to the underlying rationale (disadvantage), not to preserving social hierarchies.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Target group: economically very poor among upper castes.
• Criterion: alignment with the goal of assisting the disadvantaged.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I grounds eligibility in disadvantage, a core policy principle—strong. Argument II appeals to preserving “age-old social structure,” which is not a legitimate policy goal when the aim is distributive justice; it neither provides evidence of systemic harm nor addresses equity—weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: Strong—links reservation to need-based uplift.• II: Weak—status-quo defense without public-interest reasoning.

Verification / Alternative check:
If reservation aims at disadvantage mitigation, widening based on poverty is coherent; II remains non-instrumental.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that include II validate a non-policy objective (maintaining social structure) as decisive.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating disruption of hierarchy with policy harm.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong.