He's right. Please check @CrackU team

please update which option is right

there is no official answer key available anywhere. can you pls provide the source for official answer key?

Hi Diya,
Note that this is an XAT question from a previous year, and we are trying to provide a reasonable justification for the key provided by XAT.

Sayed's specific concern revolves around the immediate impact of Palani’s performance on the branch’s overall standing. Option E offers concrete reassurance by explaining that the branch head has the flexibility to exclude the performance of a new joiner like Palani from the overall performance calculations. This directly mitigates Sayed’s fear about the branch’s metrics being negatively affected.

While Option A emphasizes Satyender’s strong leadership and could reassure Sayed about the branch's overall performance in the long run, it doesn’t address the technical concern about the immediate consequences of Palani’s underperformance. Sayed’s worry is specific to Palani’s impact, and Option A provides only general reassurance without a direct solution.

It's correct that Option E doesn’t focus on Palani’s future performance. However, the question is about assuaging Sayed’s current fear, which is tied to branch performance and not to Palani’s eventual improvement. Option E provides a precise mechanism to manage the immediate concern, aligning with the intent of the question.

I hope this helps!

Understood, sir. Thank you.

Welcome. I'm glad to be of help :)

Hi,

We provide video solutions for CAT mocks only.

Hi Shristhi,
Not sure what the doubt is.Option D is incorrect as it doesn't directly address the reason for the 30% higher travel expenses. While it suggests that Palani has to meet clients on weekends, it doesn't explain why this would lead to significantly higher travel expenses. Travelling on weekends is not inherently more expensive, and the statement does not provide a clear and reasonable justification for the increased expenses.
Hope this helps!

Hi Priyannk,
Hi. In the question, a case has been given where an employee who is new to the branch submits his travel bills that are more than expected. Now the option must provide a concrete justification for this or must refute it completely so that Satyender can arrive at a decision. Only Option A gives a solid reason, all other options hint towards a possibility, If Palani uses auto-rickshaw which cost more, then the extra bill is justified. Other options hint towards reasons that could cause the increase in bills. Example: The need to travel more to persuade clients does not actually translate into higher bills. We need the assumption here that this need will direct translate into an increase in the travel bills. Hope this clears your doubt.

Hi Varun, 
Could you recheck your sources? The official answer key provides Option E as the correct answer. 
As for option A, Just because Satyender has been handling the branch well so far does not imply that Palani was not working worse than what was expected from her. 
If you have any other particular doubts, feel free to ask 
Regards