Q.Which is a good reason to conclude the constitution's authority is higher than parliament's? (MCQ a-d)

The constitution's authority is higher than parliament's because parliament itself only exists and only has whatever powers it has because the constitution specifies this — parliament's authority is derived from the constitution, not the other way round.

The chapter's discussion of "specification of decision-making powers" makes clear that before any law-making body can act, something has to give it the authority to enact laws in the first place — that authority-granting act is exactly what a constitution performs. In the Indian case, the Constitution specifies that Parliament gets to decide most laws and policies, and further specifies how Parliament itself is to be organised. Because Parliament's very existence and its scope of powers flow from the Constitution, the Constitution is logically and legally superior to Parliament, not merely older or more prestigious than it.

The other options don't hold up as "good reasons": that the constitution was framed before parliament came into being (option a) is not even reliably true across constitutions in general, and even where it is true, mere timing doesn't by itself establish legal authority. That the constitution-makers were personally more eminent than parliament's members (option b) is a claim about individuals' reputations, not about the structure of legal authority. That the constitution cannot be amended by parliament (option d) is also not a reliable general fact — many constitutions, India's included, actually can be amended by parliament through specified procedures — so this cannot be the "good" reason either.