Question

Should the system of reservation of posts for scheduled castes be introduced in the private sector?

• A. Argument I is strong
• B. Argument II is strong
• C. Both I and II are strong
• D. Both I and II are weak

Hint:

In argument-based questions, both opposing views can be strong if they are logical, relevant, and backed by social, legal, or economic principles.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding Argument I
Argument I — "Yes, this would give more opportunity of development to these groups."
This is strong because social justice and equal opportunity are constitutional goals.
Extending reservations to the private sector could help historically disadvantaged communities access higher-paying jobs, thereby reducing socio-economic inequality.
It also aligns with affirmative action policies to level the playing field.
Step 2: Understanding Argument II
Argument II — "No, this would affect merit."
This is also strong, as it addresses a genuine concern regarding productivity and competitiveness in private enterprises.
Merit-based selection is essential for maintaining performance standards, and compulsory quotas might reduce flexibility in hiring the most skilled candidates.
Step 3: Conclusion
Both arguments are valid from different perspectives — one from a social equity standpoint and the other from an efficiency/merit standpoint.
Since both carry significant weight in policymaking, the correct choice is (c).
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Option: (c) Both I and II are strong}} \]