Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Five statements are given below,...

A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.

B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.

C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.

D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.

E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.

a)
A
b)
B
c)
C
d)
D

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and ...

If we read all the sentences carefully we can infer that the paragraph centres around the history of the debate over cow slaughtering issue in India. However, among the sentences given, all except sentence C are in line with the context.

The sentence C is clearly a part of some other paragraph and must be the odd one out here.

Option C is hence the correct answer.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and ...

Explanation:

Context:
The passage discusses the historical background and controversies surrounding the debate on cow slaughter during the framing of the Constitution.

Logical Order:

B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.
This statement sets the context by highlighting the longstanding nature of the debate on cow slaughter prohibition.

D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.
This statement further elaborates on the arguments put forth by proponents of cow slaughter ban, emphasizing both cultural and economic aspects.

A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.
This statement highlights the significance of the issue of cow slaughter during the constitutional framing, indicating the intensity of the discussions surrounding it.

E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.
This statement provides a specific example of how some members of the Constituent Assembly viewed the prohibition of cow slaughter in a broader cultural and civilizational context.

Incorrect Option:

C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.
This statement introduces a different perspective by discussing the Supreme Court's reasoning based on economic considerations, which does not align with the theme of cultural and historical debates on cow slaughter prohibition during the constitutional framing.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What possible dangers does the author envisage when an institution becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges?

View answer

One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:"… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.Q. Which of the following is the main point of the author in the given passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Parliament has enacted the Farmers' Protection Act 2020, which according to a group of activists is violating the fundamental right of freedom of trade of the farmers. The group of activists files a public interest litigation challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

View answer

Passage - 3One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/ the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said:"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, the Judge recuses from hearing the case.A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that:"... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive.The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding.Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in ones oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.Q.What kind of institution the judiciary is referred to in the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution is intended to be permanent and, therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that would injure, maim or destroy its indestructible character. The word "amendment" implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed and it cannot be so construed as to enable the Parliament to destroy the permanent character of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the said power can be exercised only to preserve rather than destroy the essence of those rights. The limits on the power to amend are implied in Art. 368 , for the expression "amend" has a limited meaning. The wide phraseology used in the Constitution in other Articles, such as "repeal" and "re-enact" indicates that art. 368 only enables a modification of the Articles within the framework of the Constitution and not a destruction of them. The debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly the speech of Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and the reply of Dr. Ambedkar, who piloted the Bill disclose clearly that it was never the intention of the makers of the Constitution by putting in Art. 368 to enable the Parliament to repeal the fundamental rights; the circumstances under which the amendment moved by Mr. H. V. Kamath, one of the members of the Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. 368 was finally adopted, support the contention that amendment of Part III is outside the scope of Art. 368 . Part III of the Constitution is a self-contained Code and its provisions are elastic enough to meet all reasonable requirements of changing situations. The power to amend is sought to be derived from three sources, namely, (i) by implication under Art. 368 itself; the procedure to amend culminating in the amendment of the Constitution necessarily implies that power, (ii) the power and the limits of the power to amend are implied in the Articles sought to be amended, and (iii) Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend, but the power to amend is only the legislative power conferred on the Parliament under Arts. 245,246 and 248 of the Constitution. The definition of "law" in Art. 13(2) of the Constitution includes every branch of law, statutory, constitutional, etc., and therefore, the power to amend in whichever branch it may be classified, if it takes away or abridges fundamental rights would be void thereunder. The impugned amendment detracts from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and also the legislative powers of the States and therefore it falls within the scope of the proviso to Art. 368 .Q. Fundamental Rights are enshrined under which part of the constitution?

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: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Five statements are given below, labelled A, B, C, D and E, among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the passage.A. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate.B. This dispute over prohibiting the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic.C. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations.D. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.E. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational problem from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability.a)Ab)Bc)Cd)DCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam