IPM Indore 2025 Question Paper

At the beginning of the conversation Rahilly mentions "Today we're talking about the next big arenas of competition, about the industries that will matter most in the global business landscape, which you describe as arenas of competition", we can infer from this that 'arenas of competition' refers to the global business landscape and the industries that compete within it. Option A focuses on some specific companies, and is incorrect. Option B talks about government regulations and option C, physical locations, and are also incorrect. Option D captured the essence of Rahilly's description and is the correct answer.

From Bradley's description that "Wizards are defined by growth and dynamism," we can infer that muggles, as opposed to wizards, are industries that are relatively sluggish and non- dynamic. Bradley also points out that "the muggles (even though they run the world, finance the world, and energize the world), play by a more traditional set of economic rules."

Based on these statements, we can conclude that option C is the correct answer. Option A is more characteristic of wizards than muggles. Option B is similar to option A, and option D has not been discussed in the passage.

From Bradley's quote "But there's another dimension or axis too, which is dynamism. That is measured by a new metric we've come up with called the "shuffle rate." How much does the bottom move to the top? It turns out that in this set of wizard-ish industries, or arenas, the shuffle rate is much higher than it is in the traditional industry," we can understand that only options A (volatility), B (competition), and D (relative change) are relevant to 'shuffle rate.' The correct answer is therefore, option C, profitability is not relevant to shuffle rate.

In the context of " wizard industries, we find Chris Bradley explicitly stating: [The economic profit, which is the profit you make minus the cost for the capital you employ, is in the wizard industries. It's where R&D happens; they're two times more R&D intensive. They're big stars, the nebulae, where new business is born.] This essentially tells that wizards don’t just make money—they make extra money after covering all costs, and they invest twice as much in R&D. This is effectively what is stated in option B. 

Option A contradicts the data as wizards capture 45% of market-cap growth (high, not slow). Option C is the opposite of the intended definition, which is that  Wizards "play by very different economic rules" than traditional industries. Option D is directly disproven by the 2x higher R&D intensity cited.

The correct answer is therefore Option B. 

The conversation is about a small group of fast-moving, innovative industries ("wizards" like tech/AI), who now dominate the economy—generating 45% of growth and outsized profits—while traditional sectors ("muggles" like oil/retail) lag behind. Wizards win by outspending on R&D and constantly reinventing the game. The business world is splitting into these two tiers.  The conversation's central thesis is unmistakable: wizard industries are outpacing traditional ones in growth, profitability, and innovation . Option B directly addresses this. 

The conversation’s core is about disruption and unequal growth, not stability (as highlighted in option a), traditional dominance (as highlighted in option c), or fantasy (as highlighted in option d). Only b captures the data-driven reality that wizards are eclipsing old industries.

The correct choice is therefore option B. 

The passage discusses the Indus Valley civilisation, which is introduced in Statement 5 as an early urban society, providing necessary context. 5 introduces us to the civilisation as a civilisation from the Bronze Age (old period); and 2 continues on that old period narrative, by stating "...sophistication for its time, this ancient culture ..." . This creates a clear lexical tie, so 5 should be followed by 2. Statement 2 elaborates on its urban sophistication (planned cities, sanitation, grid layouts). Statement 1 serves as an example of the "architectural prowess", which is mentioned in statement 2. So 21 forms a logical pair. The order 521 therefore goes: General → Specific (civilisation → urban design → examples). Statement 3 then shifts to economic aspects (trade, agriculture), a natural progression from discussing physical cities to how they were sustained. Statement 4 concludes with the civilisation’s decline, a fitting end as it contrasts its achievements with its mysterious downfall, thereby ending with a thought-provoking note on its decline.

The correct order is therefore 52134. 

The passage talks about Toyota's AI-powered robots, which can learn cooking skills (like flipping pancakes) from scratch, improving rapidly through AI—but they're not meant for kitchens. This demonstrates how AI is creating adaptable robots for future unknown uses.

Statement 2 introduces the setting and subject - robots cooking in Toyota's lab. This is the natural starting point as it establishes the basic scenario ("robots... cooking"). Statement 4 follows naturally by adding detail about these particular robots' capabilities ("more proficient than most..."), building on the initial introduction. The transition works with "But these robots..." contrasting with generic robotic chefs. Statement 5 then explains what makes these robots different from conventional ones - they weren't laboriously programmed but started with basic skills. This follows logically after establishing their proficiency. Statement 1 provides the next piece of information: how they progressed from basic skills to high proficiency through the use of AI. This directly connects to the "basic set of skills" mentioned in statement 5. Statement 3 serves as the perfect conclusion, revealing that despite their cooking skills, they're not meant for catering, which is a thought-provoking ending that makes us wonder about their actual purpose.

This order 2 → 4 → 5 → 1 → 3 creates a clear progression: Introduction → Capabilities → How they work → How they improved → Surprising conclusion. Each sentence naturally leads to the next with logical connectors. The ending offers an intriguing twist that prompts the reader to think.

The correct order should therefore be 24513

Statement 2 introduces the key fact about India's position (6th worst-affected) and sets up the climate impact discussion with a specific time frame (1993-2022). This works best as the opener. Statement 1 naturally follows by expanding the scope from India to show that 7 of the top 10 worst-affected are low/middle-income countries, building on the initial statistic.  Statement 4 then draws the conclusion from these facts - that developing nations bear disproportionate climate burdens despite low historical emissions. This logically follows the evidence presented in 2 and 1. Statement 3 provides the contrasting perspective from high-income nations about responsibility, serving as an effective counterpoint to conclude the paragraph.

This order 2 → 1 → 4 → 3 creates clear logical flow: Specific example (India) → Broader pattern (7/10 countries) → Conclusion about burden → Contrasting view

Each sentence naturally leads to the next; The correct order should therefore be 2143. 

The passage argues that creativity stems from discovering wonder in everyday moments, thereby challenging the notion that it requires grand inspiration. Statement 2 presents the idea of creativity and discusses what it essentially entails. The idea that only "big" events spur genuine creativity is then refuted in Statement 4. An alternative is offered in Statement 3, which claims that ordinary, everyday experiences can also inspire creativity. It gives examples like sunlight, traffic noises, and the smile of a complete stranger. Statement 1 uses the demonstrative "these", which refers to the everyday moments mentioned in 3, so 31 becomes a pair. 1 also serves as a conclusion, reiterating the central idea that "creativity isn't just about rare, amazing events—it's also about finding the special in the ordinary."

The sequence therefore goes : Defining creativity (2) → Debunking the myth (4) → Showing examples (3) → Revealing the payoff (1).

2431 is therefore the correct order.

The passage discusses how plants adapt to drought conditions by modifying their root growth patterns through certain chemical signals.

Statement 1 talks about the situation when, due to droughts, the water depletes at the topsoil, and Statement 4 gives us a solution as to what plants do to adapt to "these challenging conditions"( using a certain acid). 14, therefore, becomes a logical pair. Statement 2 further provides concrete evidence of HOW the acid (mentioned in 4) enables deeper water access, completing the narrative. SO the sequence should follow 142. 

Statement 3 introduces the general topic of plants using their root systems to seek water. This is the natural starting point, and not a conclusion, as it establishes the basic biological context. So the correct sequence should be 3142.