Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between andldquo;strongandrdquo; arguments and andldquo;weakandrdquo; arguments in so far as they relate to the question. andldquo;Strongandrdquo; arguments are those which are both important and directly related to the question. andldquo;Weakandrdquo; 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 andldquo;strongandrdquo; argument is and which is a andldquo;weakandrdquo; 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.a)If only argument I is andldquo;strongandrdquo;.b)If only argument II is andldquo;strongandrdquo;.c)If neither I nor II is andldquo;strongandrdquo;.d)If both I and II are andldquo;strongandrdquo;.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions : In making decisions about import...

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.

a)
If only argument I is “strong”.
b)
If only argument II is “strong”.
c)
If neither I nor II is “strong”.
d)
If both 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 decisions about important questions, it is desi...

Both are true as widows and divorcees are independent and don't have any stable means to earn money, whereas reservations have already crossed the 50% limit hence both the statements are strong individually

This question is part of UPSC exam. View all CLAT courses

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desi...

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Community Answer

Directions : In making decisions about important questions, it is desi...

Understanding the Arguments
In the context of whether there should be reservations for widows and divorcees in government jobs, we have two arguments to evaluate.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- Importance: This argument emphasizes that widows and divorcees are part of a vulnerable section of society.
- Relevance: It directly addresses the question of reservations by justifying the need for support for these individuals who often face social and economic challenges.
- Conclusion: This makes it a strong argument as it connects directly to the well-being of a disadvantaged group, asserting that they require special consideration in employment opportunities.
Argument II: Strong Argument
- Importance: This argument points out the current status of reservations in government jobs, arguing that they have already reached their peak.
- Relevance: It addresses the practicality of implementing further reservations, suggesting that additions may not be feasible or necessary.
- Conclusion: This argument is also strong as it highlights the limitations of the reservation system, focusing on the implications of introducing more reservations.
Final Evaluation
Both arguments hold significant weight in the discussion:
- Argument I focuses on the need for social equity and support for marginalized individuals.
- Argument II considers the administrative and systemic constraints of the reservation policy.
Given that both arguments are important and directly relevant to the question, the correct conclusion is that both I and II are strong arguments.
Summary
- Argument I: Strong - addresses the needs of a marginalized group.
- Argument II: Strong - highlights the limits of the current reservation system.
Thus, the correct answer is option 'D': both arguments are strong.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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

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

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to everyone. Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office. Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Article 16(4

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 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct 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 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct 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 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct 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 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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.a)If only argument I is “strong”.b)If only argument II is “strong”.c)If neither I nor II is “strong”.d)If both I and II are “strong”.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam