Question:

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

Statement: Should a strong institution of ombudsman be created in India?

Arguments:
(i) Yes, this will bring transparency and accountability in the administration.
(ii) No, this will develop lack of initiative and flexibility in the administration.

Show Hint

Recall what an ombudsman is actually meant to do, then check which argument states that very purpose and which one relies on a guess about how officials will react.
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:
An ombudsman is an independent authority that hears complaints against public officials and investigates maladministration. In India this idea took shape as the Lokpal and Lokayukta. The question is whether a strong ombudsman should be set up, and which of the two arguments really supports a side.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
A strong argument must connect to the core purpose of the body being discussed and must state an effect that follows from that purpose. If an argument attacks a side effect that the body is designed to prevent, or leans on a chain of doubtful assumptions, it is weak.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Argument (i) says an ombudsman will bring transparency and accountability. That is exactly what the office exists to do. When an outside authority can examine decisions and call an officer to answer for them, the officer records reasons, follows procedure and expects scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are the direct products of that oversight, not a lucky by product. The argument matches the purpose of the institution, so it is strong.
Argument (ii) says the ombudsman will make the administration lose initiative and flexibility. This assumes an honest officer will freeze up merely because a complaint body exists. An ombudsman looks at corruption and maladministration, not at bold but honest decisions taken in good faith. The fear rests on a shaky chain of assumptions and does not follow from what the office actually does, so it is weak.
Only argument (i) clears the test.

Step 4: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) accepts the fear based argument, which needs several unproven assumptions to work.
Option (C) requires both arguments to be strong, and (ii) is not.
Option (D) rejects (i) even though it names the very function of an ombudsman.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Argument (i) alone 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