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.

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:

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