(C) is the option dude u r lookin for...
Suppose that u take 1 st statement then...
9nb+3pn=7nb+5pn
or,2nb=2pn
price of nb=price of pn
now add the 2 eqns then...
40 francs=16nb+8pn=24 items
or, 40 francs=12nb+12pn
similarly the other statement can be judged...
okay dude....
People here are talking about the book 101 ethical dilemmas. I don't think that book is useful for XAT. The questions that come in XAT are practical scenarios where ethics are not the thing being tested or atleast not the only thing being tested.
P>P.S mint, a newspaper that HT publishes has a lot of good argumentative type articles in it.
yup!! Frankly speaking this book is more or less like a Reference book for the ethical decision making.
I was going thru xat 09 paper, i didnt see any Q of that sort, book is not really meant for xat i guess.
regd Mint, yes def a good one, rather for all other purposes as well, like GD-PI, business news etc.
Can sum1 give me an insight of this DS question -
(A) ONLY 1 REQD.
(B) ONLY 2 REQD.
(C) EITHER / OR
(D) NEITHER / NOR
If 20 Swiss Francs is enough to buy 9 notebooks and 3 pencils, is 40 Swiss Francs enough to buy 12 notebooks and 12 pencils?
(1) 20 Swiss Francs is enough to buy 7 notebooks and 5 pencils.
(2) 20 Swiss Francs is enough to buy 4 notebooks and 8 pencils.
thnx in advance....
(C) is the option dude u r lookin for...
Suppose that u take 1 st statement then...
9nb+3pn=7nb+5pn
or,2nb=2pn
price of nb=price of pn
now add the 2 eqns then...
40 francs=16nb+8pn=24 items
or, 40 francs=12nb+12pn
similarly the other statement can be judged...
okay dude....:cheerio:
figures of
speech for
XAT. Is there a particular online
book from which we can
practise?
Replying to my question on the previous page, the answer is Option B.
Analysis.
Option A: The first part is very convincing, but once u take an issue to the court u cannot but help to state whether the documents are true or not and taking something to the court will lead to further mud slinging as both sides would want to push the other down, which is something the government would not definitely not want in the lead up to the elections. In fact, this is one of the reasons that the US government has not charged wikileaks as of now, as they don't want to open a can of worms.
Option B: This is the step that would negate the whole thing, as the leaks and the protests are ostensibly coordinated the charge would easily stick on the opposition and thus the government gets a upper hand going into the elections.
Option C: This is the most morally correct thing to do, but the government knows that any action carried out now will not take effect in the span of one month, so the advantage of being morally sound is squandered and as the government will constitute the committee and that too before the elections, so any such step is not going to restore the image of the gov. in the eyes of the people.
Option D: What the US government is doing now, with not so spectacular results 
Option E: never fight with a pig in the mud, nobody comes out clean
@cognizant will try to post some sets, though they all are self created and thus are inferior to the ones u will encounter in XAT
P.S never be an entrepreneur, u will sometimes have too much time on ur hands aka yours truly 
(C) is the option dude u r lookin for...
Suppose that u take 1 st statement then...
9nb+3pn=7nb+5pn
or,2nb=2pn
price of nb=price of pn
now add the 2 eqns then...
40 francs=16nb+8pn=24 items
or, 40 francs=12nb+12pn
similarly the other statement can be judged...
okay dude....:cheerio:
What a logic!! Boss its not 9n+3p=7n+5p rather its 9n+3p
Is the answer to the DS question, Only B is suff. i.e option 2. By first statement just by comparing with the given statement u see that when u give away 2 NB u get 2 P u get total prize in the same range, but u cannot be sure for giving away 3 NB and adding 3 P(as we are req to prove 6NB +6P
I guess option is 4 ( neither/nor)
9n + 3p 12n+12p
1. 7n+5p2. 4n+8p
Using individual options with given statement i couldn't get anything near to the result,so combined both of them.
9n + 3p +
7n+5p -------------
16n +8p -
4n+8p -------------
12n
also we subtract statement 2 from 1
7n+5p-
4n+8p-------------
3n - 3p 3n nsince we know
12n adding +ve quantity on both sides
12n + 12p
now if n=p then 12p=12nso RHS becomes 20 + (20 or less than 20) =(40 or less than 40)-- so 40 swiss francs are suff
but if n12n so in this case we cant really establish the relationship between 12p and 20..we dont which one will exceed. so we cant comment whether really 40 bucks will be suff or not.
thus neither is suff.
are such calculations like subtraction of two inequal equations... one from another permissible..... I am not sure....i.e. a+b
techgodajay SaysIs the answer to the DS question, Only B is suff. i.e option 2. By first statement just by comparing with the given statement u see that when u give away 2 NB u get 2 P u get total prize in the same range, but u cannot be sure for giving away 3 NB and adding 3 P(as we are req to prove 6NB +6P
I think your approach is right.. But could you please elaborately explain how can this be said by comparing 1st statement and given statement that 2NB can be given away to get 2 p within same total range... Jst not getting that....
Suppose 1 NB costs Rs 0.5 and a P costs Rs 3 now original cost Rs 13.5, now take stat. 1 and our cost is Rs 18.5 but let us take reduce the original 9 NB to 6 and increase 3 P to 6 and we breach the Rs. 20 limit. If we had assumed 1 NB = 1Rs and 1 P = 1Rs then statment 1 gives us the answer that 6NB + 6P In statement 2 the case that was giving problem earlier i.e cost of P > cost of NB is resolved bcoz to get 4NB + 8P
Suppose 1 NB costs Rs 0.5 and a P costs Rs 3 now original cost Rs 13.5, now take stat. 1 and our cost is Rs 18.5 but let us take reduce the original 9 NB to 6 and increase 3 P to 6 and we breach the Rs. 20 limit. If we had assumed 1 NB = 1Rs and 1 P = 1Rs then statment 1 gives us the answer that 6NB + 6P In statement 2 the case that was giving problem earlier i.e cost of P > cost of NB is resolved bcoz to get 4NB + 8P
Got it now... That was really helpful.. Thanks a lot..
Replying to my question on the previous page, the answer is Option B.
Analysis.
Option A: The first part is very convincing, but once u take an issue to the court u cannot but help to state whether the documents are true or not and taking something to the court will lead to further mud slinging as both sides would want to push the other down, which is something the government would not definitely not want in the lead up to the elections. In fact, this is one of the reasons that the US government has not charged wikileaks as of now, as they don't want to open a can of worms.
Option B: This is the step that would negate the whole thing, as the leaks and the protests are ostensibly coordinated the charge would easily stick on the opposition and thus the government gets a upper hand going into the elections.
Option C: This is the most morally correct thing to do, but the government knows that any action carried out now will not take effect in the span of one month, so the advantage of being morally sound is squandered and as the government will constitute the committee and that too before the elections, so any such step is not going to restore the image of the gov. in the eyes of the people.
Option D: What the US government is doing now, with not so spectacular results
Option E: never fight with a pig in the mud, nobody comes out clean
@cognizant will try to post some sets, though they all are self created and thus are inferior to the ones u will encounter in XAT
P.S never be an entrepreneur, u will sometimes have too much time on ur hands aka yours truly :banghead:
I think answer should still be C because of the following reasons:
a. Its the educated people as you pointed out in the passage that see these documents when its leaked via the media. Ergo, for the most part, they are not stupid enough to buy into the whole ' opposition hand' BS. Take for example, the Commonwealth Games example...Everyone knows Kalmadi is Corrupt and is angry that even with seemingly hard evidence against him, the govt's doing nothing. Similarly with this case, trying to pass it off as a conspiracy theory will do more harm than good.
b. That brings me to my 2nd point. In the short term, its very important to look morally right. So option 3 is a must. That way, the govt. can claim no earlier knowledge of the corruption, and promise to actively prosecute those responsible. Since the elections are only a month away, it would take the wind out of the oppositions rants of govt-wide corruption and reclaim the moral high ground by pointing out its only specific bad elements, which may be present in any govt.
c. Now this is 2 fold. 1. If the govt is a decent one, it'll actually prosecute those guilty. 2. If they don't really want to, the committee can drag its feet and find a not-guilty verdict or divert the blame onto others. Either way, it'll definitely take more than a month, so the elections will be over.
So overall, vote bank happy, opposition's trumpet snatched away, moral high ground reclaimed and the option to not take any real action without damaging election chances.
Definitely answer C.
Also, just wanted to point out another thing.
As its clearly visible by now, that answers to decision making questions are actually going to reflect the examinee's personal ethics and thought process rather than a prepared approach to solve such questions. You cannot learn to ignore the personal ethics and way of thinking that you've built up over 20 years in 2 weeks for one exam. Instead, all you need to know is what your personal ethics really are and think about which option reflects those best. After that, you just hope that the paper setter's thought process is the same as yours.
I read about 10 pages of 101 ethical dilemmas, and I'm sure that the author's only aim is to let you understand what your personal ethics truly are by making the reader think. Also, that's usually for the initial problems of a particular set. After that, the idiot (author) tries to mold your ethics to match his own by suddenly mentioning more and more preconditions to the problem at hand. Hence, I stopped reading that book because it deviated from what the author promised at the beginning (that it's just to make you think freely).
So basically, read the first pages of problem sets from that book. Think about the issues. Get to know your way of thinking well so that you don't waste time being stuck in a dilemma during the exam.
@sourav The question clearly says the government wants a short term advantage thus being morally correct is not a binding obligation and the educated people form a small part of the population. Consider the @G scam, only a minuscule portion of the population even knows what it is and the masses can be fooled, remember BJP's India shining campaign that targetted the educated masses and the internet savvy generation and they thought that they had the "whole" vote bank in their pockets, well we know they were wrong bcoz though the educated masses form the jet set part of the society they exercise only a limited number of votes. Also the government is guilty so it cannot form a committee to look into the matter, take the 2G scam, the CVC's JS is himself under scrutiny and when it was announced that they would investigate matters, the government was made into a laughing stock and forget higher moral ground, even the last vestiges of integrity were lost and suppose the committee is formed anyway and it looks into the matter but does not deliver a ruling before a month the government has its prominent misters going into the elections with a reputation of being the guilty party, they are not exonerated, now how good is that?? So the end result is majority of the vote bank not convinced, going into the elections with a tainted rep. , admission of being guilty by constituting a committee that clearly gives validity to the documents.
As I said in my post a few pages back, look at the question first, does it ask u to be morally correct or ethical or does it want a practical solution.
As I said in my post a few pages back, look at the question first, does it ask u to be morally correct or ethical or does it want a practical solution.
Hey,
M really not gettin it..
:drinking:How do we know for certain if we are supposed to give a practical or ethical solution? What if in the options provided for a scenario, both morally correct and practical solutions are present? Which one do we select in such cases?
Can you pls elaborate?
Hey,
M really not gettin it..
How do we know for certain if we are supposed to give a practical or ethical solution? What if in the options provided for a scenario, both morally correct and practical solutions are present? Which one do we select in such cases?
Can you pls elaborate?
Go to last yr's paper, for the ethical answers see the question set on eco-tourism, the set is called Guruji's solution, I think. For practical solutions see the racket-indian players set, u will realize the difference after seeing both sets.
you are sitting in fornt of an interview panel for tyhe final round of selection for a job you have long conveted.you are asked about the reason for quitting your job.the fact is that you had left earlier job due to an unproved but widespread allegation on your character by your colleagues.
how will you handle the situation?
(1) you will state the fact wasa false allegation(which was unresolved) was made on your charatcetr and how you felt could not do justice to your workplace anymore due to an emotional disconnect.
(2)you will state the fact that a false allegation was made on your character and your self exteem shattered.
(3)you will not bring up the allegations as it would show your candidature in poor light.
(4)you will not bring up the allegations and simply provide other convincing resons for quitting job.
(5)you willo bring up allegations and explain how it was the entire office conniving against you due to an impending promotion.
I think i'll go wid opt 1, anyways hiding the real reason will put u in awkward position and affect ur body language and confidence level.Instead having prepared beforehand for this pitfall and providing some other real life examples showing ur +ve attitudes and portraying a strong character throughout interview will go a long way in convincing the panel.
you are sitting in fornt of an interview panel for tyhe final round of selection for a job you have long conveted.you are asked about the reason for quitting your job.the fact is that you had left earlier job due to an unproved but widespread allegation on your character by your colleagues.
how will you handle the situation?
(1) you will state the fact wasa false allegation(which was unresolved) was made on your character and how you felt could not do justice to your workplace anymore due to an emotional disconnect.
(2)you will state the fact that a false allegation was made on your character and your self exteem shattered.
(3)you will not bring up the allegations as it would show your candidature in poor light.
(4)you will not bring up the allegations and simply provide other convincing resons for quitting job.
(5)you willo bring up allegations and explain how it was the entire office conniving against you due to an impending promotion.
Although, I am confused between options 1 and 4, i feel sticking to the truth might be a good decision as the matter was unresolved as per the author. Hence my option is 1.
However I have a doubt here, the practical solution to the problem is option 4 and the morally correct option is 1.
So, what's the correct answer here?
you are sitting in fornt of an interview panel for tyhe final round of selection for a job you have long conveted.you are asked about the reason for quitting your job.the fact is that you had left earlier job due to an unproved but widespread allegation on your character by your colleagues.
how will you handle the situation?
(1) you will state the fact wasa false allegation(which was unresolved) was made on your charatcetr and how you felt could not do justice to your workplace anymore due to an emotional disconnect.
(2)you will state the fact that a false allegation was made on your character and your self exteem shattered.
(3)you will not bring up the allegations as it would show your candidature in poor light.
(4)you will not bring up the allegations and simply provide other convincing resons for quitting job.
(5)you willo bring up allegations and explain how it was the entire office conniving against you due to an impending promotion.
Answer in bold.
The fact that I was not able to resolve the issue puts a question mark on my abilities. If something like that can lead me to leave my job, there is no guarantee that I won't be affected by it in the future and the same will be hard to explain to the panel. I will not bring out the issue during the interview and provide some other convincing reason for the same.
------------------------------------
hi
my academics are
10 th 87%
12 th 86%
grad 72%
n i wanna apply 4 ximb
is my academics r enough 2 get a cal 4m ximb?????
if anyone post wht likely cut offs for pgdm n pgdm -rm
plz soon:lookround: