Statement: Should there be reservation of jobs in private-sector organisations in India, similar to reservations in public-sector undertakings? Arguments: I. Yes. It would expand opportunities for historically weaker sections, supporting social mobility and narrowing the gap between affluent groups and the downtrodden. II. No. Private firms do not receive government assistance and therefore should not be bound by such policies. III. No. Nowhere else in the world is such a practice followed. IV. No. Private-sector managements would not agree to such compulsions. Select the option that best identifies the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:
“Statement and Argument” questions test whether a given argument is strong—i.e., specific, relevant to the stated policy decision, non-trivial, and grounded in public-interest reasoning rather than mere opinion, appeal to popularity, or predicted resistance. Here the policy under review is reservation in private-sector jobs similar to the public sector.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy probe: extend reservation to private-sector employment.
• “Strong” arguments should address outcomes, feasibility, and public interest, avoiding vague generalities.
• Do not assume unstated facts; evaluate what each argument actually claims.

Concept / Approach:
We judge each argument on relevance (does it directly bear on the decision?) and robustness (is it principled or evidence-oriented rather than speculative?). Appeals to tradition (“no country does it”) or to convenience (“management will not agree”) are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
• Argument I: Links the policy to social equity—expanding opportunities for weaker sections and reducing inequality. This is a direct, public-interest rationale and is therefore strong.• Argument II: Claims lack of government assistance implies immunity from public policy obligations. This is not inherently persuasive; many regulations apply to private firms irrespective of subsidies. The logic is incomplete, so the argument is weak.• Argument III: “Nowhere else in the world…” is an appeal to popularity/tradition. Policy merit is not determined by how common it is. Weak.• Argument IV: Predicts managerial resistance. Stakeholder disagreement does not, by itself, determine policy invalidity. Weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Re-cast the decision in terms of goals (equity vs. efficiency). I clearly weighs equity goals; II–IV provide neither evidence nor compelling principle to defeat those goals.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “I and II/I, II and IV/I and IV”: include weak arguments, so incorrect.
• “Neither”: rejects a clearly valid public-interest case in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing feasibility or popularity with strength; a strong argument must be normatively or evidentially relevant, not merely predictive.

Final Answer:
Only I is strong.