Click an option to answer, or type your answer for TITA questions. The answer key and solution appear right after.
Take as a timed testExam-style timer and marking, then your score with solutions.
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Sundaram Stores operated in a gated community, situated about 30 Kilometers away from the main town. The store owner Mr. Sundareswaran Pichaimuthu, or Sundaram as he was called by everyone, secured a space in the gated society through a competitive bidding process. The residents’ association, led by Mr. Thangamoorthy Selvaganapathy, selected Sundaram over three other bidders, based on his willingness to pay the highest rent. Desperate to augment his post-retirement income, Sundaram agreed to pay a very high rent, banking on the prospect of generating exceptional revenue from the gated community. Sundaram was awarded the contract to establish the store, with provisions for a review every three years. Feeling elated during the meeting with the residents’ association to finalize the contract, he enthusiastically committed to offering a 15% discount on all groceries and stationary, cementing goodwill and reinforcing the partnership established through the contract. The association was delightedly taken aback by his generous assurance. Sundaram hoped to make up the difference through volume. Although his sales were strong during the initial months, he soon realized that the SUV-owning residents of the gated community primarily made their purchases at large, branded retail chains in the main town. These stores offered deeper discounts, which he could not afford to compete with. However, gradually, Sundaram store became their go-to store for daily essentials and occasional urgent big purchases such as replacing a broken mixer-grinder.
Q1
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
While reviewing his monthly accounts, Sundaram realized that he was barely breaking even, primarily due to the substantial rent he was paying to the residents’ association. He realized that while his sales were stagnated, the rental costs were contractually scheduled to increase every three years. He was determined to do something to increase his profits.
Which of the following will be the MOST sustainable way to increase Sundaram’s profits?
Stakeholders and criterion: Sundaram (owner) is barely breaking even, sales have stalled and rent will rise every three years. The question wants the most sustainable way to raise profit, i.e. a lasting improvement in margin, not a one-off fix.
Key facts: residents do their big, price-driven shopping at town chains that are cheaper than him anyway. They use Sundaram for daily essentials and urgent purchases. These are convenience buys, where price matters little. So the 15% discount is not winning him volume. It only cuts his margin on sales he would get anyway.
Why option 5 is best: removing the discount and selling at MRP raises the margin on every sale for good, and costs him no customers who are buying for convenience. It also keeps working as rent rises.
Option 1: errands to fetch items from 30 km away add cost and effort for a few occasional orders. It is not a lasting profit source.
Option 2: he won the space by bidding the highest rent, and the contract fixes the increases. The association has little reason to agree, and any cut would be one-time.
Option 3: a 40% discount day cuts margins further, which is the opposite of what he needs.
Option 4: residents already know the only store inside their community. Leaflets do not fix a margin problem.
Answer: Option 5
Q2
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
To increase his profits, Sundaram diversified into selling vegetables. Earlier, a vegetable vendor used to visit the gated community once every week. The vendor, after seeing dismal sales ever since Sundaram started selling vegetables, stopped visiting the gated community. The residents’ association did not like losing the rent they were receiving from the vendor. Additionally, the maintenance staff of the gated community benefitted from receiving vegetables either for free or at extremely low prices, as the vendor, reluctant to take back the unsold stock, chose to distribute them at little to no cost. This enabled the residents’ association to retain maintenance staff whose attrition rate was increasing with more gated communities coming up in the nearby area.
Which of the following options will BEST address the concerns of the residents’ association arising out of Sundaram getting into selling vegetables?
Stakeholder and criterion: the residents' association. It has two concerns: (a) the rent it used to get from the vegetable vendor is gone, and (b) maintenance staff got cheap or free vegetables from the vendor, which helped keep them at a time of rising attrition. The best option should address both.
Why option 3 is best: giving the vendor a rent discount brings him back. The association earns rent again, though less of it, and the vendor goes back to handing his unsold stock to the staff. That restores the perk that helped retain them. More competition also benefits residents and keeps a check on Sundaram's prices.
Option 1: a fine is punitive. It neither brings back the vendor's rent nor the staff benefit, and it sours the relationship with Sundaram.
Option 2: forcing free vegetables from Sundaram covers only the staff concern, not the lost rent. It also imposes a cost his contract never included.
Option 4: a second grocery store does nothing about vegetables for staff and may not even sell vegetables. It is also a much bigger step than the problem needs.
Option 5: extra rent from Sundaram covers the revenue concern, but the staff lose their free vegetables. Sundaram has no unsold stock to give away the way the vendor did.
Answer: Option 3
Q3
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Sundaram is a happy man now. He has managed to get contracts with two more nearby gated communities. He feels like the grocery king of the suburb. However, his happiness is short-lived as Rush’em, a new startup, begins making waves among gated communities. This app-based startup promises to deliver any grocery item within 15 minutes, leveraging its own large warehouses. Earlier, Rush’em was confined to the main town, but now, the startup has expanded its delivery services to the suburbs, including gated communities where Sundaram operates. Of course, for the suburbs, Rush’em promises delivery within 60 minutes, given the distance. Though not an official slogan, the rumour in the market is that Rush’em’s founder inspired her employees by shouting “Rush’em or Crash’em, but Push’em through that door!” Sundaram started losing business to Rush’em. He felt rushed, pushed, and was wondering if his business would come crashing.
What should Sundaram BEST do to ensure that his revenues do not come down due to Rush’em?
Stakeholders and criterion: Sundaram is losing business to Rush'em, whose edge is convenience: home delivery, though it takes up to 60 minutes in the suburbs. The best response should protect revenue by beating that edge at a cost he can afford.
Why option 2 is best: Sundaram is already inside the three gated communities. A few helpers can deliver within 10 minutes, far faster than Rush'em's 60. This turns his location into an advantage, keeps residents buying from him, and costs little.
Option 1: complacent. Rush'em already delivers to the suburbs and he is already losing sales, so the 30 km distance no longer protects him.
Option 3: his contract does not allow it, and Rush'em's access is no reason for the association to cut his rent. Even if it worked, it lowers costs but does not win back customers.
Option 4: customers are leaving for convenience, not price. Across-the-board discounts would also wipe out his already thin margins.
Option 5: a startup that takes on a funded app with large warehouses needs capital and skills Sundaram lacks. It is a risky leap compared with a simple delivery service.
Answer: Option 2
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Humane Dynamix is a leadership training organization based in Mumbai. Established in 2015, the organization is gradually becoming a leader in behavioral training. In the organization, trainers are assigned to training projects based on their expertise. Corporates seek behavioral training services on a regular basis, from Humane Dynamix, for upskilling their executives. Humane Dynamix is headed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), to whom the Training Assignment Officer (TAO) reports. The TAO position rotates among the senior trainers for a fixed tenure; the CEO assigns this position to a senior trainer. Companies, desirous of hiring Humane Dynamix, share their training needs with the organization. The TAO assigns a trainer to the client. Typically, the satisfied client requests for a particular trainer that the client is satisfied, giving repeat business to Humane Dynamix from the same client company. However, the TAO takes the final call. Years of training experience plays a big role in client satisfaction, and hence, senior trainers conduct most training programs while the newly recruited trainers apprentice with them. However, the senior trainers have the autonomy to decide on who they want to accept as an apprentice. Further, during a training program, the senior trainer takes most of the sessions, if not all, while the apprentice helps the senior trainers to organize their sessions, and occasionally take a few sessions. As the apprentices gain experience, they start getting their own independent projects, but that typically takes quite some time. Dheeraj, a senior trainer, takes over as the TAO. As soon as he assumes the office, the CEO shares a concern with him: “We have a lot of young trainers who we have recently recruited. Since they are not known to the outside world, they do not get enough opportunities. Many of them are impatient to prove their mettle. Unless they are assigned more programs, we risk losing them rapidly.”
Q4
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Dheeraj knows that his senior colleagues are very good at training, and, hence, they conduct most of the training programs. They keep the clients satisfied and, consequently, bring repeat business. However, as asked by the CEO, Dheeraj needs to do something to enable the young trainers get more opportunities and increase their training engagements.
Which of the following options should Dheeraj execute to BEST enable the young trainers to get more training opportunities, without affecting their relationships with the client companies?
Stakeholders and criterion: the CEO wants young trainers to get more opportunities so they do not leave. Senior trainers and clients matter too, because satisfied clients come back for particular senior trainers. The condition is that client relationships must not be affected.
Why option 1 is best: under the existing model, a senior trainer leads each programme and an apprentice assists. Requiring seniors to hand at least 30% of their sessions to the young trainers gives the juniors real training hours and visibility with clients. The senior trainer the client asked for stays in charge of the programme. Clients still get the trainer they trust, so the relationship is protected.
Option 2: asking repeat clients to switch to new trainers puts the very relationships the question says must be protected at risk.
Option 3: moving repeat projects away from the senior trainers clients asked for may leave those clients unhappy.
Option 4: asking seniors to give up their clients threatens those relationships too. It also pushes Dheeraj's task up to the CEO.
Option 5: searching for clients who are willing to accept juniors is slow and uncertain. It may produce few assignments, so it does not reliably meet the CEO's concern.
Answer: Option 1
Q5
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Dheeraj decided to assign some of the repeat clients, at random, to their young trainers, to address the concerns of the CEO. Many young trainers appreciated him for giving them more opportunities. Sudha Iyer, a senior trainer, popular for her training programs in “Deceptive Communication Methods,” was surprised to see that some of her long-standing clients were assigned to a young person. She was concerned that the clients would feel shortchanged. Moreover, she was chagrined that she was not even consulted. This led to the reduction in her number of training hours. Since, Humane Dynamix incentivizes trainers who cross a mandated number of training hours every year, Sudha was also concerned about her possible revenue loss. Sudha wanted Dheeraj to stop assigning established clients to the young trainers.
Which of the following actions would BEST help Sudha to stop Dheeraj from assigning her programs to the young trainers?
Stakeholders and criterion: Sudha wants Dheeraj to stop giving her established clients to young trainers. The decision-maker is Dheeraj, so the best action is the argument most likely to persuade him. That means an argument based on the organisation's interest, not her own grievance.
Why option 3 is best: as TAO, Dheeraj answers for keeping clients. If Sudha tells him that handing long-standing clients to novices may lose those clients for Humane Dynamix, she speaks to his own responsibility. She does it directly and professionally, and her real concern (her hours and income) is served without being the stated reason.
Option 1: training the juniors helps them become independent sooner. That actually supports reassignment, and it does nothing to stop the current assignments.
Option 2: confronting the CEO over her own revenue looks self-serving and sets her against his stated priority. It is unlikely to work.
Option 4: asking for Dheeraj's removal is out of proportion. He is carrying out the CEO's instruction.
Option 5: asking clients to reject the company's assigned trainers undermines her own organisation and is unethical.
Answer: Option 3
Q6
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Dheeraj assigned a repeat client of Nandini Hegde, another very senior trainer, to Kirti Gowda, a promising young trainer. A few days later, the client company reached out to Nandini, off the record, and informed her that they were very unhappy with Kirti’s training. They also shared that Dheeraj, when informed about this, had claimed that the client would appreciate Kirti with more exposure to her training programs.
What BEST can Nandini do to regain the client for herself, without appearing to be against the organization’s focus on providing the young trainers more opportunities?
Stakeholders and criterion: Nandini wants to win back her client, which is unhappy with Kirti. She must not appear to oppose the organisation's push to give young trainers more opportunities. Other stakeholders are the client, Kirti and Dheeraj (TAO).
Why option 5 is best: if Kirti co-trains with Nandini, Nandini is back in front of the client and quality is restored. Kirti keeps her place on the programme and improves through mentoring. The proposal goes formally through Dheeraj, so it supports the young-trainer agenda instead of fighting it. Every stakeholder gains.
Option 1: pushing the client to complain to the CEO goes over Dheeraj's head and makes Nandini look like she is plotting against him.
Option 2: telling Kirti to opt out sidelines a young trainer, which is exactly the anti-young image Nandini wants to avoid. It also goes beyond her role.
Option 3: coaching the client to demand her alone looks self-serving and shuts the young trainers out.
Option 4: confronting Dheeraj with what the client told her off the record is adversarial, and it offers no solution.
Answer: Option 5
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
KindCare hospital, located in the small industrial town of Chinar, is one of the largest hospitals within 50-kilometers radius. It is well-regarded among the locals for emergency services. However, for critical surgeries, they prefer to travel to the nearest city Shamili, which is 100 kilometers away. When KindCare was established 50 years ago, the town was still in its early stages of development. Consequently, the hospital needed to incorporate several facilities within its premises, including a 24-hour cafeteria, to accommodate needs of the patients and their relatives who would come from nearby places. Another facility that KindCare built and takes pride in is its state-of-the-art testing lab. It is the most sought-after testing lab in Chinar even today when many independent labs have come up around KindCare. Moreover, many other facilities have also come up in the surrounding area of the hospital such as pharmacies, food joints, hotels etc. Further, a standalone pharmacy chain has gained a strong foothold in Chinar as they expand their reach into Tier-3 cities. When it comes to KindCare, a significant proportion of its patients are outpatients with a substantial number seeking emergency services. As the sole 600-bed hospital in the region, KindCare plays a crucial role in medical services, and receives generous funding from two major corporations operating locally, further enabling KindCare to cater to the growing medical needs of the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, KindCare made significant investment in enhancing internet connectivity, enabling many doctors, and the majority of administrative staff, to seamlessly work remotely. This investment also allowed KindCare to bring in doctors from other cities through remote care. Further, COVID-19 was a wakeup call for KindCare to enhance their infrastructure. Though KindCare made significant improvements, they kept the major renovations on hold due to the constant flow of patients. KindCare believes that if the held renovations are not taken up on an urgent basis now, the operations at the hospital will get obstructed.
Q7
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
KindCare feels that it needs to be better prepared before a similar situation like COVID-19 chances upon the city again. The hospital decides to invest immediately in improving their infrastructure. However, this would mean that, temporarily, it should either reduce, or shut down the operations of a few departments. It is considering the following options: A) Reduce their outpatient capacity to half B) Shut down the cafeteria for the period of renovation C) Ask their administrative staff to work remotely D) Strip the pharmacy operations down to emergency and critical medications E) Shut down the medical lab, and arrange medical tests from a local lab
Which of the following combinations will LEAST affect the functioning of the hospital?
Criterion: choose the three cuts that least affect the hospital's functioning, i.e. those where the passage shows another option exists or little harm results.
Option
Effect
A. Outpatients halved
Severe. Most patients are outpatients, and KindCare is the only big hospital in the region.
B. Cafeteria shut
Low. Many food joints and hotels have come up around the hospital.
C. Admin staff remote
Low. The COVID-era investment already lets most admin staff work remotely without trouble.
D. Pharmacy cut to critical drugs
Low. Many pharmacies and a strong pharmacy chain operate nearby, while emergency and critical drugs stay in-house.
E. Lab shut
Significant. It is the most sought-after lab in Chinar and core to diagnosis. Outsourcing tests adds delay to emergency care.
B, C and D are the low-impact options, so BCD is best.
ACD, ABE, ABC: each includes A, which hurts the core outpatient service.
BCE: includes E, which gives up a key diagnostic facility when a far easier cut (D) is available.
Answer: Option 2 (BCD)
Q8
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
KindCare needs to maintain a large inventory of medicines and other auxiliary supplies in their storage unit. The storage unit ensures adequate and timely supply to Intensive Care Unit and the emergency services, and always runs to capacity. The renovation team suggests that the storage unit be shut down for seven days for urgent renovation. However, the hospital building being old, in the past, renovation work had stretched beyond estimated time.
Which of the following actions BEST ensures KindCare operates efficiently during the renovation of the storage unit?
Criterion: the storage unit supplies the ICU and emergency services and always runs full. The work is officially 7 days, but renovations in this old building have overrun before. The best action keeps supplies close and on time however long the work takes.
Why option 5 is best: the cafeteria is the hospital's least essential facility, since food joints and hotels surround it. Shutting it "until further notice" frees space on the premises for the storage unit. Supplies stay close to the ICU and emergency, and the arrangement simply continues if the renovation overruns.
Option 1: a store an hour away slows critical supply to the ICU and emergency. Renting for a fixed seven days also ignores the likely overrun.
Option 2: shutting down the hospital, the region's only large one, is far out of proportion to renovating one storage unit.
Option 3: halving emergency capacity weakens the service the hospital is known for. Part-by-part work also drags the renovation out.
Option 4: a new facility is a long-term project. It does nothing for the urgent renovation now.
Answer: Option 5
Q9
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
KindCare Hospital has to renovate its storage unit, given the complexity of the medicines and the need to store other critical supplies. The renovation is supposed to take seven days. However, as the work starts, the team entrusted with the work realizes that the work will take more than 15 days. KindCare feels that even this revised estimate is modest. Already the outpatient services are affected, and people visiting the hospital are being turned away. Stretching it further will attract a strong public resentment.
Which of the following actions offers the MOST sustainable solution for KindCare to reduce the number of patients being turned away?
Criterion: patients are already being turned away. The renovation estimate has grown from 7 to over 15 days, and even that looks optimistic. The question asks for the most sustainable way to cut the number of patients turned away. The best option ends the disruption quickly and with certainty, without giving up the needed renovation.
Why option 5 is best: a reputed team that guarantees completion in three days removes the cause of the turn-aways almost at once. The renovation still gets done, and the hospital is well funded by two corporations, so the triple cost is affordable. A guaranteed short timeline also protects against public anger.
Option 1: sending critical patients 100 km to Shamili does not stop patients being turned away locally. It also hurts KindCare's role and reputation.
Option 2: stopping the work just postpones the problem. The passage says operations will be obstructed if the renovation is not done urgently.
Option 3: running from scattered rented spaces is costly, hard to coordinate, and only a partial fix.
Option 4: hiring experts to "find ways" to speed up gives no certain timeline. Reduced operations would still turn patients away in the meantime.
Answer: Option 5
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Aarya had always been a mediocre student. Luckily, after finishing her undergraduate degree from a tier-two engineering college, she secured a decent, but modestly paying job at a reputable IT company. However, after a year on the job, Aarya found her role mundane. When her best friend at the company, Shruti, left to pursue an MBA from a top-tier business school, citing significant career growth and potential salary increase upon graduation, Aarya felt intrigued and inspired to follow the same path. Shruti appreciated Aarya’s aspirations, telling her that doing MBA from a top-tier business school could not only land Aarya a lucrative job, but also it could fast track her career progression. However, Aarya was concerned whether she would be able to balance between her MBA entrance-exam preparation and her current job. Aarya considered resigning to focus entirely on MBA entrance-exam preparation, but Shruti cautioned her that top-tier business schools might view a career break unfavourably, as they prefer continuous professional engagement.
Q10
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
The CEO of Aarya’s IT firm tied up with a premier business school to reserve thirty seats in an online management certificate program, aimed at grooming working professionals. The CEO, however, declared that the employees participating in this program will have to sign a three-year bond with the firm. Further, the CEO added that though good performance was a criterion for selection, he would hold authority to take a final call. Aarya, well aware of her academic limitations, was unsure about the time available to prepare for the MBA entrance exams. She contemplated going for the management certificate program, instead of preparing for the MBA entrance exams.
Which of the following considerations will BEST help Aarya decide whether to apply for the online management certificate program?
Stakeholder and criterion: Aarya's goal throughout is career growth, which was the reason she wanted an MBA. She is weighing the certificate programme (with a three-year bond and the CEO's final say) against preparing for MBA entrance exams. The deciding consideration is whether the programme actually advances careers.
Why option 5 is best: if those who complete the programme do well in their careers, it meets her core goal. That makes it a sound alternative to a tough entrance exam and justifies the bond.
Option 1: HR's appreciation may help her get selected. It says nothing about whether the programme is worth joining.
Option 2: wanting a good alumni network is a preference. Nothing says this online certificate offers one.
Option 3: Shruti's two attempts concern the MBA route. They do not help judge the certificate programme.
Option 4: a manageable workload makes the programme feasible but not worthwhile. It does not show any career benefit.
Answer: Option 5
Q11
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
After working hard on MBA entrance-exam preparations for one year, Aarya received an admission offer from the two-year agribusiness program of a premier business school. While she aspired to be a part of that premier business school, she had no interest in agribusiness. While deliberating, she received an offer from a brand new, but buzzworthy, global one-year executive MBA program in General Management, in a mid-tier business school. The program boasted excellent placement for its first batch of students. While the program was typically geared towards students with a considerable industry experience, being new, it also allowed some exceptions for “well-deserving students” with little or no experience.
Aarya was worried whether, being a candidate with a minimal experience, she would be a good fit in the executive MBA program. Which of the following considerations would BEST help Aarya in taking admission in the one-year executive MBA program?
Stakeholder and criterion: Aarya has two offers: a premier school's agribusiness MBA, a field she has no interest in, and a new one-year executive MBA in General Management. Her worry is fit, since she has little experience. Her goal from the start has been a lucrative, fast-growing career. The best consideration links the executive MBA to that goal.
Why option 4 is best: if the executive MBA gives her a better chance of advancing in a field she cares about, it outweighs the fit worry and the mid-tier tag. Interest and career progress are exactly what she is seeking.
Option 1: lack of confidence to prepare again is a weak, negative reason. In any case she already holds another offer.
Option 2: the agribusiness programme not being flagship is a point against that offer. It does not answer whether the executive MBA suits her.
Option 3: start-up attention to the programme is indirect. It does not speak to her interest or her fit.
Option 5: a scholarship is a financial plus, but it does not address fit or career direction.
Answer: Option 4
Q12
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
After working hard on MBA entrance-exam preparations for one year, Aarya received two admission offers: one from the two-year agribusiness program of a premier business school, and another one from a brand new, but buzzworthy, global one-year executive MBA program in General Management in a mid-tier business school. As she did not have much interest in agribusiness, Aarya opted to enrol in the one-year executive MBA program, and promptly submitted her first instalment of fees towards admission. She was very happy that she would soon embark on her MBA journey. To her shock, a few days later, she received a call from the authorities of the mid-tier business school. They informed her that due to a technical glitch in their system, more admission offers were made than the available seats. Consequently, candidates lower on the merit list, including Aarya, were being offered a choice from the following options: a deferred admission next year to the same program, or a full refund of the fees. They also said, if interested, Aarya could right now join a similar program, starting in a newly launched campus of the same business school, where many seats were available. Aarya considered the whole episode a breach of trust, and wondered, if it would at all be worthwhile to be associated with this business school now or in the future.
Which of the following considerations will BEST restore her faith in this business school?
Stakeholder and criterion: Aarya sees the over-admission as a breach of trust. What would restore her faith is evidence of the school's integrity in handling this mistake.
Why option 3 is best: trust after an error comes back when the institution admits fault and makes a real effort to put things right. Owning the mistake and doing its best for the affected candidates, through deferral, refund or a seat at the new campus, shows honesty and care. That speaks directly to her sense of betrayal.
Option 1: placements at a different school after a similar incident say nothing about this school's integrity.
Option 2: extra work experience is a practical upside of deferral. It does not repair trust in the school.
Option 4: teaching ethics to corporates does not show ethical conduct towards its own candidates. If anything it highlights the gap.
Option 5: saying over-offering is common practice excuses the problem and suggests it was deliberate, not a glitch. That would deepen her distrust.
Answer: Option 3
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Mr. Zubin Mistry is the owner and the chief editor of the newspaper The Pluralist, renowned for its high reporting standards and outstanding writing quality. The Pluralist’s authentic reporting distinguishes it from other newspapers that sensationalize news. They are responsible employers, known to be highly supportive towards their employees. Its news editing team is led by Ms. Ramya Kattabomman, a respected veteran in the newspaper reporting industry, well-known for her stringent adherence to the ethical standards of newspaper reporting. Mr. Aditya Swaroop Verma, an award-winning senior journalist, has brought in an exposé into the activities of a mining company, operating in an ecologically vulnerable area. In his hard-hitting reporting style, he has presented interviews with tens of people, delineating how the mining company has used illegal means to start mining in that area. These mining activities may lead to the destruction of the local ecological balance. However, Aditya Swaroop is unable to obtain an interview with the management of the mining company. Aditya Swaroop’s investigative report article offers significant revelations about the alleged illegal activities of the mining company which were hardly covered in the media otherwise. Nevertheless, his sources have requested for complete anonymity.
Q13
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Ramya is trying to decide whether to publish the article. While publishing the article may enhance the reputation of The Pluralist, there are possibilities of political and economic backlash for reporting on the powerful mining company. She has consulted the legal team of the newspaper, who have warned that the report, relying mostly on anonymous sources, is likely to be legally vulnerable. On the other hand, Aditya Swaroop is a senior journalist, well known and well respected for the quality of his investigative reporting. The topic of the report is time sensitive: if the report is not published within the next 2-3 days, the mining company would get an important government project in the same area.
Which of the following reasons will BEST enable Ramya to publish the article?
Stakeholders and criterion: Ramya must weigh reputation gains against legal and political risk. The legal team's warning centres on the report relying on anonymous sources. The best reason to publish is the one that addresses the article's credibility, which is the core of the risk, while matching the paper's high standards.
Why option 1 is best: Aditya Swaroop's investigations have always enhanced The Pluralist's reputation. This is direct evidence that his sourcing and judgment have proved reliable, and it partly answers the doubt about anonymous sources. It also fits the paper's identity of authentic, high-quality reporting.
Option 2: another daily covered a different mining company. That has no bearing on whether this story is reliable.
Option 3: fear of being scooped is a sensationalist motive. The Pluralist sets itself apart from such papers.
Option 4: brushing off the legal team as over-cautious ignores a specific, stated risk. It does not fit Ramya's strict ethics.
Option 5: time pressure explains why the decision is urgent, not why the article is sound enough to print.
Answer: Option 1
Q14
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
After the article is published next morning in The Pluralist, it goes viral. However, the mining company pushes back with a public declaration, contesting some of the findings of the article. While the potential inaccuracies do not entirely invalidate the article, they substantially undermine its message if proven true. When Ramya asks Aditya Swaroop to bring in further proof to publish a rebuttal, he informs her that his sources, for a vital part of the article, were two employees recently fired by the mining company. And, they now admit that they were not completely honest in their initial interaction with him. Though some points raised in the article might still be valid, it is difficult to separate the inaccuracies given the unreliability of the sources. Ramya immediately brings it to the attention of Zubin, while admitting that she hastily permitted the publication of the article.
What is the MOST responsible action should Zubin take, keeping in view the recent developments due to the inaccuracies of the article?
Stakeholders and criterion: readers, the mining company, the newspaper's credibility, Aditya Swaroop and Ramya. Key sources have admitted they were not fully honest, and the true parts cannot be separated from the false. The most responsible action is honest correction, with accountability placed where the editorial lapse occurred.
Why option 4 is best: since the accurate and inaccurate parts cannot be told apart, the whole article must be retracted. That is the ethical step for a paper known for authentic reporting. Ramya has admitted she approved publication hastily, and the editor is responsible for what gets printed. Her public apology shows the paper taking accountability at the editorial level without making a scapegoat of the reporter.
Option 1: accusing the company of bullying witnesses has no basis. It would add a fresh unverified claim.
Option 2: republishing a "modified" version defends work built on unreliable sources and leaves inaccuracies in print.
Option 3: firing Aditya Swaroop makes the reporter the scapegoat for an editorial decision. It is unlike a paper known for supporting its staff.
Option 5: revealing anonymous sources breaks a basic ethical promise of journalism and shifts the blame.
Answer: Option 4
Q15
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
After the article is published in The Pluralist, the mining company pushes back with a public declaration, contesting some of the findings of the article. This has hit Aditya Swaroop’s reputation because he trusted unreliable sources. Nevertheless, he is confident about the illegal activities of the mining company; he wants to redeem himself. He approaches Zubin with a request to go back to the mining company project to find new sources and rewrite an article with reliable pieces of evidence. Though his fresh investigation will require time and money, it might also enhance the reputation of the newspaper. Zubin respects Aditya Swaroop and wants his reputation to be restored. However, Zubin is confident that continuing to work on the mining company project will not yield any results.
Which of the following actions by Zubin will BEST enable Aditya Swaroop to enhance his diminishing reputation?
Stakeholders and criterion: Zubin wants Aditya Swaroop's reputation restored, but he believes the mining story will yield nothing more. The best action rebuilds the journalist's reputation in the way journalists earn it, through fresh, strong investigative work, without wasting money on a dead end.
Why option 3 is best: a new investigative project shows Zubin's continued faith in him. It also gives him the chance to produce credible work that restores his name, and it moves him off the unproductive mining story.
Option 1: working anonymously hides his work. An anonymous byline cannot rebuild a public reputation.
Option 2: Zubin thinks the mining project is fruitless, so handing it to a new team wastes resources. A consulting role also does little for Aditya's standing.
Option 4: telling him to start a YouTube channel effectively pushes him out of the newspaper. His current fame comes from the controversy, not credibility.
Option 5: taking him off investigative work looks like a demotion and gives him no chance to prove himself.
Answer: Option 3
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
TrueColor, an event management company in eastern India, had been in a business of inviting Tollywood singers to a city called Tivanna, and made money out of selling tickets of their concerts. The stars were paid a fixed fee regardless of the number of tickets sold. The company had a specialized team that negotiated the singers’ fee with their managers. However, for selling the tickets of such events, they were reliant on an external media agency called Zedius. Zedius had a long-standing relationship with TrueColor, and had been instrumental in achieving a target of 50,000 tickets for each of the flagship events. Mr. Sukanta Rao joined TrueColor as an inhouse sales and marketing manager, a position exclusively created for him. The CEO, Mr. Adil Banerjee, had assigned a task of increasing the sales of tickets to 100,000. In Sukanta’s earlier stint, he had seen that similar cities sell more than 75,000 tickets for such events. He felt that, over time, reaching 100,000 was plausible for TrueColor.
Q16
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Sukanta felt that the aspirational target can be achieved only if Zedius is replaced. However, he is not sure if he should make any major changes in his first year.
Which of the following reasons will BEST help Sukanta NOT to start making major changes immediately?
Criterion: Sukanta believes Zedius must go, but he is unsure about big changes in his first year. The question asks for the best reason not to make major changes yet, i.e. a sound, managerial reason for caution.
Why option 4 is best: his benchmark (75,000+ tickets) comes from his earlier job in other markets. If he still needs time to understand the dynamics of the eastern market, then replacing a long-standing agency right away is premature. Learning first lowers the risk of a costly mistake. This reason concerns the quality of his decision, which is what should drive timing.
Option 1: the owners' social standing is not a business reason to keep an agency.
Option 2: being hired to boost sales "by whatever means" argues for immediate change, not against it.
Option 3: a five-year relationship is history, not evidence that Zedius can deliver the higher target.
Option 5: sales stuck at 50,000 for a decade point to stagnation, which argues for change.
Answer: Option 4
Q17
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
Just two weeks before the flagship event, Adil received a few emails from competing media agencies that accused Zedius of selling phony tickets in the “black” market. When Adil enquired with the security agency in charge of gatekeeping the events, they told him that they had no mechanism to check the authenticity of tickets.
Which of the following options will BEST help Adil to ignore the accusations from the competing media agencies, and maintain status quo?
Criterion: Adil wants a reason to ignore the accusations against Zedius and keep things as they are. The reason must undermine the credibility of the accusations themselves.
Why option 1 is best: the accusers are competing media agencies, and in Tivanna such agencies routinely defame each other in fierce competition. The emails are then most likely rivalry, not evidence. This gives Adil a reasonable basis to set them aside, especially two weeks before the flagship event.
Option 2: letting VIPs in without tickets is unrelated to whether Zedius sells fake tickets.
Option 3: being the largest agency does not mean Zedius is honest. Size may even make wrongdoing easier.
Option 4: attendees paying cash to gatekeepers shows leakage at the gate. That is a reason to investigate, not to ignore.
Option 5: a promised sales threshold gives Zedius a motive to inflate numbers. It does nothing to clear it.
Answer: Option 1
Q18
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
The following year, Sukanta discussed with Adil that unless they got into the ticket selling process, they might not be able to improve the ticket numbers. However, this would mean moving away from Zedius, and the transition could cause short-term pains since TrueColor would be entering into unchartered territory. Further, Sukanta added that TrueColor would achieve self-sufficiency over couple of years. Adil was concerned about the risk of taking over an activity that the organization was not competent at, but understood Sukanta’s point. In the interest of building long-term competencies, he authorized Sukanta to take it forward. Sukanta did not renew Zedius’s contract in the following year; instead, he recruited a skeletal team of three freshers from a premier business school as his support staff. As the event approached, the team dedicated themselves to executing their plan. However, by the time the ticket sales window closed, they managed to sell only 40,000 tickets. This shift in strategy provoked considerable dissent within the company, challenging Sukanta's decision. Disturbed by the situation, witnessing the internal turmoil, Adil must now navigate the company's immediate reaction.
Which of the following should now be Adil’s BEST course of action?
Stakeholders and criterion: Adil, Sukanta and his team, and the dissenting staff. Adil approved the move knowing it would cause short-term pain, and Sukanta said self-sufficiency would take a couple of years. A fall to 40,000 in the first year, with a new three-member team, is the expected transition cost. The best response stays consistent with that long-term decision.
Why option 5 is best: giving the investment time honours the strategy Adil approved "in the interest of building long-term competencies". Reversing after one predicted dip would waste the effort so far and damage his credibility as a leader.
Option 1: running back to Zedius right away gives up the long-term plan after one expected setback.
Option 2: dismissing the team and handing over to the old agency is the same reversal, and it also wastes the talent just hired.
Option 3: threats demoralise a young team in a turnaround. They add pressure but no capability.
Option 4: an agency working for the main competitor raises conflict-of-interest concerns, and it still abandons the in-house plan.
Answer: Option 5
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Ned Flanders and Homer Simpson Partners Limited is a law firm, known for its unwavering commitment to client satisfaction. They treat the clients as family members who have grown along with the firm. Further, they are highly regarded in the industry, consulted by the country’s top organizations. Among the founders, Homer Simpson is flamboyant, while Ned Flanders is serious. Together, they bring a dynamic balance to the team. The organization believes in a strong socialization ritual that bonds the new lawyers (newcomers) with the existing members. Also, the socialization ritual ensures that newcomers fully understand the nature of their work and integrate seamlessly into the company’s culture. During their first week, newcomers are overloaded with a barrage of artificial tasks, unexpected client calls, and a challenging meeting with the founders. This results in newcomers getting overwhelmed, and doubting their decision to join the firm, only for the founders to meet them and reveal that this is one big prank and a way to welcome them to the organization. This socialization ritual has served them well for the past two decades. However, not all the newcomers appreciate the utility of this ritual. One of the lawyers, Ms. Lisa Simpleton, who joined in 2023 and went through the same socialization ritual, found it unwelcoming. She believes that other newcomers might also share the same opinion. Lisa thinks that the current generation, especially post-COVID, needs more friendly welcome, and the firm must put an end to this ritual.
Q19
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
When a new batch of lawyers joins in 2024, Lisa feels that it is her moral responsibility to reprieve the newcomers from the ensuing stress. However, Lisa, like the others who joined along with her, is on probation for two years. During the probation period, her skills and performance are under evaluation. Upon successful completion of this two-year assessment, she will be eligible for confirmation. Since she is yet to be confirmed, she wants to be seen as fitting within the organization’s culture.
Which of the following options will BEST enable Lisa to save the newcomers from the socialization ritual, without being singled out for questioning the organization’s culture?
Stakeholders and criterion: Lisa wants to spare the newcomers, but she is on probation and must not be singled out as someone challenging the culture. The best option voices the concern through legitimate channels while spreading her personal exposure.
Why option 3 is best: joining a group petition puts the concern formally and openly before the founders. It also signals that many people share the view, not just one dissenter. As one member of a team, Lisa is far less exposed than if she acted alone.
Option 1: secretly tipping off a newcomer undermines the ritual behind the founders' backs. If found out, she would be singled out, and it does not end the practice.
Option 2: a one-to-one meeting asking a founder to end the practice puts her alone in the spotlight as the critic.
Option 4: a generic workshop on workplace politics does not address the ritual or protect the newcomers from it.
Option 5: staying silent protects her but gives up her goal of sparing the newcomers.
Answer: Option 3
Q20
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
When a new batch of lawyers joins the organization in 2024, they receive an anonymous email, warning them about the socialization ritual, just as it is about to start. Though no newcomer paid heed to the mail, the founders are furious. They call a meeting, and announce that while employees are welcome to express their opinions, this cowardly act of sending an anonymous email shall not be tolerated. The watercooler discussions murmur Lisa’s name. Lisa is pleased that someone shares her perspective on the socialization ritual and has acted. However, she did not write the aforementioned email. As her name continues to be mentioned, she feels overwhelmed and wonders if she needs to do something about it.
Which of the following actions by Lisa can BEST enable her to defuse the situation?
Stakeholders and criterion: Lisa, the founders and her colleagues. Rumours link her to the anonymous email she did not send. The founders object to the anonymity, not to opinions. To defuse the situation she must clear her name with the people whose view matters, honestly and without adding to the noise.
Why option 1 is best: meeting the founders directly is the opposite of anonymity, which is exactly the conduct they said they value. She can be honest about her reservations and still deny authorship. The matter is settled privately with the decision-makers, which suits her probation status.
Option 2: a public email draws the whole firm into the issue and keeps it alive. It may look defensive.
Option 3: publicly apologising for having views is dishonest. It may also be read as an admission that she wrote the email.
Option 4: staying passive leaves the rumours to harden, which is risky during probation.
Option 5: taking responsibility for someone else's act implies guilt she does not bear.
Answer: Option 1
Q21
Decision Making MULTIPLE CHOICE
It is 2025: a new batch of lawyers has joined the firm. Some lawyers from the 2024 batch have approached the founders to express their appreciation for the intent behind the socialization ritual. They shared that the experience offered them a glimpse of the world they are about to enter. However, they feel that the ritual has become archaic in its execution, showing its age and necessitating some fresh thinking. As they leave, Ned feels that the time has come to abandon the ritual due to changing times. However, Homer disagrees; he thinks that exposing the employees to what the profession has to offer, in the first week, is very critical. Moreover, it helps the organization know whether the newcomer is ready for such a profession. Further, he adds that the socialization ritual has been effectively helping them for decades in grooming the talents of their organization.
Which of the following actions should the founders BEST take, if they still want to welcome their newcomers by exposing them to the harsh reality of the profession, while being empathetic to the demands of the times?
Criterion: the founders want to keep the purpose of the ritual, exposing newcomers to the harsh reality of the profession, while making it suit the times. The 2024 batch praised the intent but called the execution archaic. The best option redesigns the execution while keeping the intent, using people who understand both.
Why option 3 is best: the young lawyers have just been through the ritual and represent the current generation. Asking them for ideas can produce a ritual that still shows the realities of the job but feels empathetic. It also gives them a voice, which settles both Ned's and Homer's concerns.
Option 1: copying competitors may not fit the firm's own culture. It also ignores the feedback already available inside the firm.
Option 2: keeping the ritual unchanged ignores the feedback that it has become archaic. A counsellor only treats the symptoms.
Option 4: a mental health professional can make it gentler but lacks the legal-profession insight needed to keep the "harsh reality" goal.
Option 5: a note on the website about workload is not a welcome or socialisation process at all.
