Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: In making a decision about an imp...

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a 'strong' argument and a 'weak' argument. A 'strong' argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A 'weak' argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is 'strong' and which is 'weak'.

Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?

Arguments:

I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.

II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.

a)
if only argument I is strong
b)
if only argument II is strong.
c)
if either argument I or II is strong.
d)
if neither argument I nor II is strong.
e)
if both arguments I and II are strong

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is de...

The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to non-recruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented, will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of it. So, argument II also does not hold strong.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is de...

Ans will be both the statements are connceted with the main cause. As deserving candidates should be selected and on the other hand population will be reduced which will help to induce pool of talent in jobs

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Arguments
20 Ques | 15 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is de...

Analysis of the Arguments
In evaluating the arguments regarding reservation in government jobs for candidates from single child families, we can determine the strength of each argument based on their reasoning and implications.
Argument I: Weakness in Reasoning
- This argument states that jobs should be offered only to deserving candidates without reservation.
- While it emphasizes meritocracy, it overlooks the potential benefits of considering social factors.
- The argument fails to acknowledge that reservation can be a tool for ensuring equal opportunities for underrepresented groups.
- Therefore, this argument is weak as it does not consider the broader social implications of reservation policies.
Argument II: A Relevant Perspective
- This argument suggests that reservation for single child families could encourage the adoption of a single child norm, helping to address population growth.
- It presents a logical connection between government policy and societal behavior, aiming for a long-term benefit.
- However, the argument may lack empirical evidence and does not directly address the effectiveness of such a policy in achieving its intended goal.
- Despite its potential relevance, it is still not robust enough to be considered a strong argument.
Conclusion
- Both arguments exhibit weaknesses in their reasoning and implications.
- Argument I fails to embrace the complexity of social equity.
- Argument II, while relevant, lacks a strong foundation in empirical evidence.
- Thus, the correct conclusion is that neither argument I nor II is strong, leading to the answer being option 'D'.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between “strong” arguments and “weak” arguments in so far as they relate to the question. “Strong” arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. “Weak” arguments are those which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. Each question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the argument is a “strong” argument is and which is a “weak” argument.Q Statement: Should there be reservations for widows, divorcees in the government jobs?Arguments:I. Yes; widows and divorcees belong to the weaker section of the society.II. No; percentage of reservation in government jobs has already reached its highest level.

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?

View answer

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Article 16(1) of the Constitution reads:“16 (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”Which of the following, if held by the Supreme Court in a future case, will weaken the Supreme Court’s position in the current case the most?

View answer

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.Article 16(1) of the Constitution reads: “16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”Which of the following, if held by the Supreme Court in a future case, will weaken the Supreme Court’s position in the current case the most?

View answer

It is quite understandable that a recentSupreme Court judgment, that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.The root of the current issue lies in the then Congress government’s decision to give up SC/ST quotas in promotions in Uttarakhand. The present BJP regime also shares responsibility as it argued in the Court that there is neither a basic right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it. The idea thatreservationis not a right may be in consonance with the Constitution allowing it as an option, but a larger question looms: Is there no government obligation to continue with affirmative action if the social situation that keeps some sections backward and at the receiving end of discrimination persists? Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality. The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalised are given a legal leg-up. Some may even read into this an inescapable state obligation to extend reservation to those who need it, lest its absence render the entire system unequal. For instance, if no quotas are implemented and no study on backwardness and extent of representation is done, it may result in a perceptible imbalance in social representation in public services. Will the courts still say a direction cannot be given to gather data and provide quotas to those with inadequate representation?Q.On what basis did the Supreme Court, in the judgment in question, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: In making a decision about an important question, it is desirable to distinguish between a strong argument and a weak argument. A strong argument must be both important and directly related to the question. A weak argument may not be directly related to the question and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is strong and which is weak.Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family?Arguments:I. No, this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.II. Yes, this will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.a)if only argument I is strongb)if only argument II is strong.c)if either argument I or II is strong.d)if neither argument I nor II is strong.e)if both arguments I and II are strongCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam