Statement: Should private sector organisations be compelled to reserve quotas for socially backward classes? Arguments: I. No. Private sector should not be governed by government rules. II. Yes. Private sector should also contribute to the upliftment of socially backward classes. Choose the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
The proposal concerns equity instruments in employment. Strong arguments should be principled and connect to constitutional or social policy aims rather than blanket assertions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Structural disadvantages may require affirmative instruments.
• Design details like thresholds, transparency, and incentives matter.

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate whether the argument provides a normative policy rationale fit for public interest.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: States that the private sector should not be governed by government rules. This is false in general, as labour, safety, and tax laws already apply. It is a weak, absolutist claim.Argument II: Places a social justice rationale on private employment to reduce systemic exclusion. While implementation details are needed, the principle aligns with equity policy. This is comparatively strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many systems mix hard quotas, targets, or supplier diversity programs. The argument for contribution is policy relevant.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I is incorrect; either or both misstate strengths; neither ignores the validity in II.

Common Pitfalls:
Treating private sector as beyond regulation; ignoring design and compliance frameworks.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong.