Typology of Social Justice Policies

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Quotas targeting specific marginalized groups fit the exact definition of affirmative action. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Universal free education is NOT affirmative action; it is the establishment of universal 'equality of opportunity'. Affirmative action requires targeted differential treatment. The correct counterpart is the classification of universal policies as equality of opportunity. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Affirmative action is by definition identity-conscious (targeting specific groups), so an identity-blind universal policy cannot carry that label.

The Assertion is correct. Universal policies are not affirmative action. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. Because the vaccination policy applies to everyone (universal), it lacks the targeted, demographic-specific nature of affirmative action. Reason (R2) is factually false. Universal welfare policies (like education and health) are highly encouraged by the Directive Principles. The correct counterpart is the constitutional validity of universal welfare.

Statement 1 is incorrect. It fails to distinguish between universal welfare and targeted equity. The correct counterpart is the conceptual separation of universal and targeted policies. Statement 2 is incorrect. Seat reservation is the most common form of constitutionally valid affirmative action. Statement 3 is correct. It accurately separates the universal baseline policy (equality of opportunity) from the targeted equity policy (affirmative action).

Policy 1 is Affirmative Action (targeted quotas). Policy 2 is NOT Affirmative Action (it is a universal public good/equality of opportunity). Policy 3 is Affirmative Action (targeted demographic reservation). Policy 4 is NOT Affirmative Action (it is universal equality of opportunity). Therefore, exactly two policies represent affirmative action.