Rakesh, in his current job, came across incidences of bribing by private sector officials. He wondered if he might have to bribe government officials while at G&P.
He reflected on his interview with G&P:
1. The interviewers were puzzled how Rakesh could manage his EMIs with his current income.
2. One interviewer was constantly probing how Rakesh managed to meet his project deadlines with little cooperation from his subordinates.
3. “What would you do if your project has a fortnight’s deadline and it takes a month to obtain a permit?,” asked another interviewer.
4. A question that intrigued Rakesh was, “Should a pack of dacoits share their loot with one of their gang, who had killed a bystander against their motto ‘Thou shalt not kill’?”

Which of the following sequences of the above statements is in the MOST appropriate DESCENDING order of bribing undertones?

Let's look at what each statement means in the context of bribery.

Statement 1 asks about managing EMIs on the current salary, which is really checking Rakesh’s financial situation. It may sound like a simple concern, but it hints that his official income might not cover his lifestyle. In fields where unofficial earnings(taking bribes, for example) are common, this question quietly checks if the candidate is used to getting extra money through things like commissions or bribes.

Statement 2 asks how Rakesh meets project deadlines even when his team does not cooperate. This is about how he uses influence and control at work. It checks if he gets results only by following rules or also by using informal methods. Bribery could be one way, but the question could also be answered by talking about leadership, persuasion, or discipline, so the hint at bribery is not strong.

Statement 3 gives a real problem: getting a permit that officially takes a month, but the project deadline is only two weeks away. This makes it impossible to finish on time if you follow the rules. The question quietly suggests looking for solutions outside the normal process, and this often means bribing officials to speed up approvals. Here, the hint at bribery is clear and practical.

Statement 4, involving dacoits and a violated moral code, is an ethical analogy. It examines whether collective benefits should override ethical breaches by individuals. While the metaphor uses criminals, it does not refer to bribery directly or even operationally. Any connection to corruption is abstract and philosophical rather than procedural.

Now, looking at the statements, we can say that Statement 3 has the strongest bribing undertone because it constructs a real-world administrative deadlock that almost requires bribery to resolve. Statement 1 comes next because it indirectly normalises undeclared income by questioning financial viability on official pay alone. Statement 2 is weaker, as bribery is only one of several ways to interpret how cooperation or results might be secured. Statement 4 is the weakest because it is essentially a moral thought experiment, with only a distant and symbolic link to corruption. So, the best order from strongest to weakest bribery undertone is 3, 1, 2, 4, which matches option E.