Hi Mahesh,
Option D is stronger than the other options because it directly addresses the issue of caste-based discrimination in the workplace. Option A, which states that people from backward castes and forward castes at the same level have the same qualifications, might indicate fairness in qualifications but does not address the issue of caste-based harassment. Option B, which states that the company pays the same salary to senior employees irrespective of caste, is unrelated to the accusation of caste-based harassment and does not provide a defense against it. Option C, which mentions the number of forward-caste people applying for jobs, is not relevant to the accusation and does not address the issue of caste-based harassment.

In contrast, Option D directly challenges the accusation by asserting that the selection process was based on qualifications, suggesting that caste was not a determining factor in the hiring decisions. By showing that rejected applicants had fewer qualifications, XYZ Pvt. Ltd. can argue that the discrepancy in caste representation among employees is a result of merit-based decisions rather than discrimination.
Hope this helps!

Hi Rudrashis,
The comment on Peter's performance in the "recent" expedition does little to justify his performance in the "last season." Furthermore, the bad performance is still attributed to Peter in Option B as opposed to Option D, where the responsibility is shifted away from Peter to the poor machinery. Hence, Option D is a better choice than B. I hope this helps!

Hi Rishiraj,

Could you please specify which question you are talking about? Is it the one about the Indian middle class?

no its for Q3, the uneployed youth question

*unemployed

Hi,
We are given that "the percentage of unemployment decreased from 2002 to 2012", but it also can be seen that the proportion of rax money given to unemployed people went up. This is strange because if there is less unemployment, shouldn't we be spending less money? But this need not necessarily be the case since the discussion involves percentages/proportions. So, the increase from 4 paisa to 6 paisa per rupee of tax collected could be for a set of reasons:
1. The effective number of taxpayers went down, and the tax amount collected by the government went down. [This is what we observe in the case of Options A and C]
2. The amount given to each unemployed person received was more in 2012 than in 2002. [This has been cited in Option B]
We note that Option D does not present a relevant explanation for the paradox - it doesn't matter to us if individuals pay more taxes than entrepreneurs because we are more interested in assessing how this particular trend relates to unemployed individuals. I hope this clears your query!