"A good statesman, like any other sensible human being, learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters. For his supporters will push him to disaster unless his opponents show him where the dangers are. So if he is wise he will often pray to be delivered from his friends, because they will ruin him. But, though it hurts, he ought also to pray never to be left without opponents; for they keep him on the path of reason and good sense. The national unity of free people depends upon a sufficiently even balance of political power to make it impracticable for the administration to be arbitrary and for opposition to be revolutionary and irreconcilable."

With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:

I. In a democracy, a strong opposition is required only if the Head of Government is indifferent.

II. The more aggressive the opposition, the better is the governance in a democracy.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

There has been no democracy that has grown economically without corporate capitalism. It helps in modernising the economy and enabling the transition from rural to urban, and agriculture to industry and services, which are inevitable with growth. It generates jobs - and there is no other way to fix a country's unemployment challenge without a further impetus to private business. Big companies can operate on a large scale and become competitive both domestically and externally. A vibrant corporate capitalist base also leads to additional revenues for the State- which in turn, can be used for greater welfare for the marginalised and creating a more level playing field in terms of opportunities.

Which one of the following statements best reflects the critical message conveyed by the author of the passage?

There has been no democracy that has grown economically without corporate capitalism. It helps in modernising the economy and enabling the transition from rural to urban, and agriculture to industry and services, which are inevitable with growth. It generates jobs - and there is no other way to fix a country's unemployment challenge without a further impetus to private business. Big companies can operate on a large scale and become competitive both domestically and externally. A vibrant corporate capitalist base also leads to additional revenues for the State- which in turn, can be used for greater welfare for the marginalised and creating a more level playing field in terms of opportunities.

With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:

I. Corporate capitalism promotes the growth of labour force and provides more employment opportunities.

II. Poor and marginalised sections of population are benefited by corporate capitalism due to trickle-down effect.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

"A network of voluntary associations stands as a 'buffer' between the relatively powerless individual and the potentially powerful State."

Which one of the following statements reflects the best explanation of the above passage?