A letter to XAT folks

Respected XAT Examination Committee,

I salute you for this unprecedented move.

Below are the questions which cast a long shadow of doubt in examinees’ mind. I have given my arguments supporting or refuting the options .

Any ‘reasonable’ decision made has to follow these fundamental settings , the decision has to be:

1)Logical

2)Moral or ethical

3)Law abiding

Set A ordering was followed.

Q 30 )

Suspending Mr. Prodigal from the party without giving him a chance to explain himself is unethical. Mr. Prodigal can get his suspension revoked easily by moving to the courts ,which will further harm the party. The party should first enquire /conduct a dialogue about the political implications and actions before reaching a decision .The first step is inquiry and then the decision , whether to suspend Mr. Prodigal or not .Also the judiciary is assessing Mr. Prodigal’s guilt in a crime and not assessing  the party’s political image , for that the party has to assess itself.  

For the reasons above , (B) Initiate an internal inquiry to find the truth , appears be to closest.

Q 32 )

Mr. Loyal has to make a decision to resurrect his immediate political career, his decision has to be ethical and logical at the same time.

Joining the main opposition party just because chances of winning is high will reflect that he is unethical and opportunistic.

Contesting independent will be most ethical and logical as last time he  had won with a majority on account of his good work. “Account of his good work” and not due to the party affiliation.

For the reasons above (D) Mr. Loyal should contest as an independent candidate. But because of a split in votes, his chances of winning would be low , only appears to fit the ethics and logic matrix.

Q 37 )

Last meeting between Mr. Patel and Dipangshu could have been with different agenda or circumstances , hence it could have been appropriate for Mr. Patel to not to allow Dipangshu to talk. Dipangshu should fix a meeting with Mr. Patel for this specific purpose and showcase the initiatives he has taken , and depending on the outcome of this meeting only he should make the decision to stay in the organization or accept the other offer.

Leaving the organization without expressing the concerns ,makes him an escapist and unprofessional.

For the reasons above (A) Talk to Mr. Patel and highlight the initiatives he has taken but at the same time start applying for other jobs , appears to be consistent with professional outlook.

Q 45 )

It is worth noting that Mr. Khan was aware that when he was taking a better job in New York ,he had already a good career and wife in India , which means he took the new job at the expense of his work-life balance and gave work more priority.

Immediately (III )Requesting  Mr. Khan to look for an equivalent job in India is not going to solve Mrs Khan’s work-life balance because :

A)Mr Khan may or may not get the equivalent job in India 

B)Mr Khan may again move other places for a better job as he gives more priority to work.

C)Mr Khan has already invested efforts in his new job , not fair ask him to move shortly.

Requesting Mrs Khan is highly speculative and not concrete .

But she can definitely spend couple of months with Mr Khan in New York  and resume work afterwords ,enabling her for better work-life balance perspective .

For the reasons above (D) (II) and (V)  appears to nearest choices for Mrs Khan. 

Q 47 )

Best action best for Business:

XAT Answer :

D. Naming the Panipat branch as ‘Ram’s’, and changing it back to Mohan’s, when needed.

Above statement  shows the inconsistent decision making on part of Mohan .If he wants to change the name , change it to Ram’s and better keep it that way as Ram is heading the branch and customers are happy with him and business is also good .But changing it back to Mohan’s when needed is wrong because 

(1) It will be unfair to Ram as business is growing due to  Ram’s efforts.

(2) It may kill  the ‘Ram’s’ Brand and its( the new Mohan’s)  business , business may have a downside due to it .

Best action best for Business

B. Not worrying about ingredients as long as business grows. 

Best thing for the business is that it should grow , and the Panipet branch has grown definitely ,so if the business is growing good no need to worry about anything (of course  it  should be legal and ethical 😛 ) Also ,as per passage ‘giving a freehand to Ram might have long term negative consequences’ is just a doubt in Mohan’s mind  and views of the four businessmen contradict it. And views of the businessmen are deemed valid in this question.

For reasons above (B) Not worrying about ingredients as long as business grows. fits the bill

Q 48 )

Best action for the future of the Business.

The Business is already growing well  when Ram is handling the branch  no point in removing him, Business may or may not grow when Mohan is in incharge , the decision may backfire.

Ram is not using premium  organic vegetable  and still generating sales  means there is a market for not-so-premium organic vegetables.It is not Ram’s fault that there may not be market for premium  organic vegetable in Panipet ,however to improve the demand of Mohan’s speciality : Premium quality organic vegetable , Mohan can create awareness in Panipet which may help in long run as it may create the market for the Mohan’s speciality.This can not hurt the business in anyway it will  only supplement it .

Creating awareness campaign for organic vegetables in Panipat is less rigid that removing Ram altogether .

 For reason stated above (A) Creating awareness campaign for organic vegetables in Panipat. makes sense business wise.

I have presented my thought processes above. A big thanks again for giving the platform for airing my views.

Warm regards

————–

I have put my points , let’s see

(This article has been written by a PaGaLGuY user. It has been largely unedited to retain the flavour). 

😃

Read Next