Assertion (A): In interview the client is ready to give information but in interrogation he is reluctant.
Reason (R): Interview is voluntary but interrogation is forced.
(A) Both (A) and (R) are incorrect.
(B) Both (A) and (R) are correct.
(C) (A) is correct, (R) is incorrect.
(D) (A) is incorrect, (R) is correct.
Correct Ans: (B)
Explanation:
The assertion (A), “In an interview, the client is ready to give information, but in interrogation, he is reluctant,” is correct. During interviews, individuals willingly share information, making the process cooperative and open-ended. In contrast, interrogation involves questioning someone who may not willingly disclose details. This reluctance stems from the nature of interrogations, which often address sensitive or incriminating topics.
The reason (R), “Interview is voluntary but interrogation is forced,” also holds true. Interviews are conducted in a relaxed setting where participation is entirely optional. This voluntary approach fosters trust and encourages individuals to provide information without pressure. On the other hand, interrogations are typically compulsory, especially in legal or investigative contexts. Authorities compel the subject to respond, which may lead to defensiveness or reluctance.
Both the assertion (A) and reason (R) align and support each other. The voluntary nature of interviews contrasts sharply with the pressured environment of interrogations, explaining the difference in the willingness of individuals to share information.
The correct answer is (B): Both (A) and (R) are correct. This distinction emphasizes the importance of choosing the right method based on the context and objective. While interviews are effective for building rapport and collecting general insights, interrogations are necessary for extracting critical or hidden information.
In conclusion, interviews rely on voluntary cooperation, whereas interrogations involve compulsion, leading to contrasting dynamics in information exchange.
