Question

Consider the two related statements below:
Statement I: Offices and positions for the marginalized sections should be open to those with greater savings among them.
Statement II: Offices and positions must be open to everyone based on the principle of fair opportunity.

• A. Statement I assumes that the marginalized sections are incapable of saving.
• B. Statement II assumes that all citizens are equally exposed to all opportunities.
• C. Statement II contradicts meritocracy.
• D. Statement II assumes that all citizens are equally intelligent.
• E. Statement I assumes that the marginalized sections always depend on subsidies.

Hint:

When evaluating assumptions, look for the \textbf{unstated belief} that makes the statement valid. “Fair opportunity” arguments usually rest on assuming equality in intelligence, ability, or rights across all citizens.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1 (Analyze Statement I).
- Statement I links access to offices/positions for marginalized sections to their savings.
- It implies an economic criterion, but does not necessarily assume incapacity to save or dependence on subsidies.
- Hence, Options (A) and (E) are overstatements and not directly implied.
Step 2 (Analyze Statement II).
- Statement II declares that offices and positions must be open to everyone under fair opportunity.
- For “fair opportunity” to work, it must assume all citizens have the same basic capability (intelligence) to benefit from such an open system.
- Therefore, its hidden assumption is equality of intelligence among all citizens.
Step 3 (Test other distractors).
- (B) “Equally exposed to opportunities” is not the assumption; Statement II is about openness, not exposure.
- (C) Meritocracy is not directly contradicted, since meritocracy is still compatible with fair opportunity.
- Thus, only (D) correctly identifies the assumption behind Statement II.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (D) Statement II assumes that all citizens are equally intelligent.}} \]