Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences andmdash; andquot;unlawful assemblyandquot; and andquot;defamationandquot; andmdash; the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Read the passage below and answer the questio...

Read the passage below and answer the question.

The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India's state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.

Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the author's conclusion?

a)
The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.
b)
The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.
c)
The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.
d)
Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has t...

Only option 1 weakens the argument of the author by stating that the ones who are charged with serious criminal records are not guilty until proven in a court of law. 'Appointing special courts', 'Lower house...divided on the issue' and 'Voters...not elect[ing] candidates with dubious credentials' do not weaken the argument.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has t...

Explanation:

Context:
The passage discusses the concern regarding the high percentage of Members of Parliament with criminal records and the Supreme Court's decision to address this issue.

Weakening the Author's Conclusion:
- The author concludes that the presence of politicians with serious criminal cases reflects poorly on India's state institutions and elected representatives.
- To weaken this conclusion, we need to provide information that challenges the author's reasoning.

Key Point:
- The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of law.

Explanation:
- Option A weakens the author's conclusion by highlighting that individuals with serious criminal records are considered innocent until proven guilty.
- This implies that the presence of politicians with criminal cases may not necessarily reflect poorly on India's state institutions and elected representatives as they have not been convicted.
- Therefore, the author's argument that such politicians tarnish the image of the democratic system may not hold true if they are eventually proven innocent.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. If the authors arguments in the given passage are true, which of the following must also be true?

View answer

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following can we infer from the given passage?

View answer

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following situations is similar in nature to fielding of criminal politicians that the author describes in the passage?

View answer

The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive.But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary.At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustain fundamental values on the other.But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy.This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.Q. Which of the following is the plausible inference, in support of Judicial Activism, can be attributed to the author of the above passage?

View answer

The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive.But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary.At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustain fundamental values on the other.But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy.This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.Q. Which one of the following is the essential message implied by this passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage below and answer the question.The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of Indias state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.Q. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the authors conclusion?a)The ones with serious criminal records are innocent until proven guilty.b)The Supreme Court has ruled to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians.c)The composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases is divided on the issue.d)Voters will not elect candidates due to their dubious credentials after the ruling of the Supreme Court.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam