The Indians with Disabilities Act (IDA) ensures the prevention of…
2023
The Indians with Disabilities Act (IDA) ensures the prevention of discrimination against differently-able people in a workplace and unethical termination as well.
Despite this, the number of unemployed differently-able people has only seen an upward slope since its introduction.
Choose the statement that strengthens the argument above:
- A.
A number of differently-abled people chose not to work.
- B.
Not willing to deal with the issues of workplace discrimination of the differently-able, several companies recruited fewer of them in the first place.
- C.
Knowing that the act was about to be enforced, companies terminated some of the differently-able while they had a chance.
- D.
The unemployment among the able-bodied has remained consistently higher.
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Concept: To strengthen an argument built around a paradox — an outcome that should not occur given the stated cause, yet persists or worsens — you need a statement supplying a plausible causal mechanism that reconciles the anomaly without contradicting the given facts.
Application: Here the paradox is that the IDA bars workplace discrimination and unethical termination of differently-abled employees, yet their unemployment kept rising after the Act. The statement that companies, unwilling to deal with workplace-discrimination issues, recruited fewer differently-abled people in the first place supplies exactly this mechanism: employers shifted the point of exclusion from termination (now restricted by the Act) to hiring (which the Act does not police here), so unemployment kept climbing because of, not despite, the Act's protections.
Checking the remaining statements against the same paradox:
A personal choice not to work never connects to the Act at all, so it cannot explain why the trend follows the Act's introduction.
Termination carried out just before enforcement describes at most a one-time transitional spike tied to the enforcement date, not a sustained rise in the years after the Act was already in force.
A comparison with the able-bodied group's unemployment level says nothing about why the differently-abled group's own unemployment kept rising.