Critical reasoning – Should seniority be the only criterion for promotion? Arguments: I. No. It would be unjust to juniors who are more deserving and suitable for higher roles. II. Yes. Otherwise senior employees feel humiliated. III. Yes. Senior employees are more experienced and must be rewarded for that.

Introduction / Context:Promotion policy often balances experience with merit and performance. The proposition asks whether seniority should be the only criterion, a very restrictive rule.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I challenges exclusivity of seniority, invoking fairness and organizational effectiveness.
• II appeals to emotions of seniors rather than organizational goals.
• III asserts experience must be rewarded, but does not justify exclusivity over competence.

Concept / Approach:In modern HR policy, multi-factor criteria (performance, skills, potential, experience) outperform single-factor rules. Strong arguments must address organizational outcomes and fairness.

Step-by-Step Solution:I – Strong: Over-reliance on seniority can block capable juniors, harming meritocracy and performance. This directly counters the exclusivity proposal.II – Weak: “Feeling humiliated” does not constitute a sound policy basis; dignity concerns can be handled via transparent processes, not exclusivity.III – Weak with respect to “only criterion”: Experience matters, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient alone; skill and performance also matter. The argument fails to defend exclusivity.

Verification / Alternative check:Organizations using blended criteria typically achieve better leadership pipelines and outcomes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I & II / I & III / All / None: Misclassify weak, emotion-based or overbroad claims as strong.

Common Pitfalls:Equating tenure with competence; ignoring objective performance metrics.

Final Answer:Only I is strong