New Click here to Enroll in NaBFID Analyst Intro Class on May 6

    Question

    Below is given a passage followed by several possible inferences which can be drawn from the facts stated in the passage. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon the degree of truth or falsity. Mark answer At first glance, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, passed last month in Parliament, seems progressive. It prohibits “the engagement of children in all occupations and of adolescents in hazardous occupations and processes” wherein adolescents refer to those under 18 years; children to those under 14. The Act also imposes a fine on anyone who employs or permits adolescents to work. However, on careful reading, the new Act suffers from many problems. One, it has slashed the list of hazardous occupations for children from 83 to include just mining, explosives, and occupations mentioned in the Factory Act. This means that work in chemical mixing units, cotton farms, battery recycling units, and brick kilns, among others, have been dropped. Further, even the the ones listed as hazardous can be removed, according to Section 4 — not by Parliament but by government authorities at their own discretion. Two, section 3 in Clause 5 allows child labour in “family or family enterprises” or allows the child to be “an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry”. Since most of India’s child labour is caste-based work, with poor families trapped in intergenerational debt bondage, this refers to most of the country’s child labourers. The clause is also dangerous as it does not define the hours of work; it simply states that children may work after school hours or during vacations. Think of the plight of a 12-year-old coming home from school and then helping her mother sow umpteen collars on shirts to meet the production deadline of a contractor. When will she do her homework? How will she have the stamina to get up the next morning for school?

    The clause, which allows children to work after school

    hours or during vacations in family or family enterprises in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 should have been scrapped
    A If the inference is ‘definitely true’ i.e. it properly follows form the statement of the facts given Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B If the inference is ‘probably true’ though not ‘definitely true’ in the light of the facts given Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C If the ‘data are inadequate’ i.e. from the facts given you cannot say whether the inference is likely to be true or false Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D If the inference is ‘probably false’ though not ‘definitely false’ in the light of the facts given Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E If the inference is ‘definitely false’ i.e. it cannot possibly be drawn from the facts given, for it contradicts the given facts Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Solution: This is probably true as scrapping this could have led to more stricter law and control on child labour

    Practice Next

    Relevant for Exams: