Statement–Argument (Uniform Civil Code): Statement: Should India adopt a uniform civil code (UCC) applicable to all communities? Arguments: I) Yes, many personal laws on marriage, inheritance, guardianship, divorce, maintenance, and property are unjust, especially to women. II) No, India's rich cultural mosaic would be harmed and a common code would fragment society. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

Introduction / Context:A Statement–Argument problem asks which argument is “strong,” i.e., specific, relevant, and policy-informative. The prompt concerns a uniform civil code (UCC) and whether adopting it would remedy injustices embedded in personal laws, particularly for women.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Proposal: Introduce a UCC that replaces community-specific personal law rules.
• Argument I: UCC addresses demonstrable injustices in areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship, especially gender inequities.
• Argument II: A UCC would undermine cultural diversity and fragment society.

Concept / Approach:In this genre, a strong argument must directly evaluate outcomes of the proposal—rights, fairness, feasibility, and public interest. Rights-based repair of systemic inequity is a substantive criterion. Vague caution about culture, without showing how the UCC necessarily harms social cohesion or why reforms cannot respect diversity while ensuring equality, is weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:Identify the core policy target: remedying unjust outcomes consistently across citizens.Check Argument I: It links the UCC to the correction of specific, persistent inequities—high relevance and concrete benefit.Check Argument II: It rests largely on an unspecified fear that uniformity erodes culture; it does not show that equality and cultural practices cannot coexist or that safeguards cannot be drafted.

Verification / Alternative check:A strong “No” would need to show better alternatives (e.g., codifying equality within each personal law with enforceable safeguards) or prove that a UCC structurally creates net harm. Argument II does not do this, so it is weak.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing II alone or “either/neither” misjudges strength: I is precise and outcome-focused; II is speculative.

Common Pitfalls:Equating cultural pluralism with legal inequality; assuming reform must erase diversity rather than constrain injustice.

Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.