Question:

Given below is a statement followed by two arguments. Read carefully and decide which of the arguments strongly support the statement.

Statement: Should the pay scale and conditions of service of government employees be made applicable to private sector employees?

Arguments:
(i) No, this will develop inertia, inefficiency and would adversely affect spirit of competition.
(ii) Yes, this will enhance dedication to work and institutional loyalty.

Show Hint

Ask what government service conditions really mean in practice, that is security and time based pay, and then ask which argument traces a believable effect from that.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Argument (i) is strong.
  • Argument (ii) is strong.
  • Both (i) and (ii) are strong.
  • Neither (i) nor (ii) is strong.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The statement asks whether the pay structure and service conditions that government employees enjoy should be extended to the private sector. A strong argument must be directly linked to the proposal, must matter in practice, and must rest on a real consequence rather than a pleasant wish.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Test each argument on three points. First, is it about this exact proposal? Second, does it name a concrete effect? Third, would a thinking person accept the link between cause and effect without extra assumptions? An argument that passes all three is strong.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The main feature of government service conditions is job security. A government employee is very hard to remove, and pay moves largely with time served rather than with output.
Argument (i) picks up exactly this feature. If the private sector adopts the same security and time based pay, the link between performance and reward is cut. Employees who cannot be removed and whose pay rises anyway have little reason to push themselves, so inertia and inefficiency follow, and the competitive pressure that drives private firms weakens. The chain from cause to effect is short and believable, so argument (i) is strong.
Argument (ii) claims the change will raise dedication and loyalty. This is only a hope. Security by itself does not make people work harder, and the argument gives no reason why it would. It also ignores the obvious opposite pull, that guaranteed pay reduces the need to perform. An argument that only asserts a good outcome without showing how it comes about is weak.
So only argument (i) survives the test.

Step 4: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) treats the weak wishful argument as strong, which it is not.
Option (C) needs both to be strong, but (ii) fails the test.
Option (D) says neither is strong, yet (i) points to a real and well accepted economic effect.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Only argument (i) is strong, so the answer is option (A).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Logical Reasoning Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Statements and Arguments Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions