Critical Reasoning – Reservation on communal basis Statement: Should seats and posts be reserved on a communal (religious/community) basis? Arguments: I. Yes. It will check most inter-communal biases. II. No. Ours is a secular state.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The topic is sensitive public policy. We are not to pass moral judgment but to assess which argument is stronger by being principled, relevant, and minimally assumptive.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The proposal is reservation based explicitly on communal identity.
- Secular governance is a constitutional principle.
- No evidence is provided that such reservation reduces bias.
Concept / Approach:A strong argument rests on constitutional principles or demonstrable outcomes. Arguments based on unverified predictions (e.g., “will check most biases”) are comparatively weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: It predicts that communal reservations will check “most” biases—an overbroad, unproven claim. Lacking evidence, it is weak.Evaluate II: It invokes the secular nature of the state, a clear, enduring constitutional value that directly weighs against communal quotas. This is a strong, principle-based argument.Verification / Alternative check:Even if special measures for disadvantaged groups may exist, explicitly communal reservations raise secularism concerns—II remains strong in a general reasoning test.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- I only: rests on speculation.
- Either/Neither: II is clearly strong.
- Both: I is not strong.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing empirical social outcomes with normative constitutional reasoning; accepting large, unevidenced claims.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong