XAT 2024 Question Paper

Option B provides critical information for Vineeta's decision. Vineeta's brother is an SUV enthusiast, suggesting he has knowledge and experience with these vehicles. He is also a trusted source for this reason. His advice specifically warns her against Diplomatico cars, which directly impact the brand Shyam (from Balaji Motors) is promoting.

With this information, Vineeta can investigate the reasons behind her brother's negative perception of Diplomatico and look beyond the brand Shyam suggested and explore other SUV options available.

Option A highlights Vineeta's lack of knowledge about SUVs, but it doesn't directly influence the decision itself. Regardless of which brand she chooses, she'll need to research specific models.

Option C focuses on availability, not suitability. The waiting period might be inconvenient, but it doesn't eliminate SUVs as a whole.

Option D doesn't eliminate SUVs entirely. She might still choose one of the benefits, like cargo space, to outweigh the challenges of parking and manoeuvring.

Option E: A new dealership, even for a popular brand, doesn't tell Vineeta if they offer SUVs or if they'll be a better fit than a Diplomatico SUV. It introduces another variable but doesn't directly address the suggestion at hand.

Let us consider each of the pieces of information individually.

Option A: Happy with the Deal: While Vineeta might be happy, the error isn't her fault. Shyam still needs to recover the loss.

Option B: Software Complexity: This explains the mistake but doesn't excuse Vineeta from receiving an unintended benefit.

Option C: Wide Network & Potential Customers: Vineeta's extensive network translates to potential future sales for Balaji Motors. Upsetting her over a Rs. 19,000 mistake could jeopardise this benefit.

Option D: Brother's Knowledge: Vineeta's brother might question the mistake, but it doesn't prevent Shyam from asking for the money back. He might even advise her to return it to avoid future issues.

Option E: Potential Write-off: If Shyam can convince Diplomatico (the car manufacturer) to absorb the cost of the extended warranty, it eliminates the need to approach Vineeta altogether.

In essence, maintaining a good relationship with a valuable customer (C) and potentially getting reimbursed by Diplomatico (E) offer Shyam better ways to address the situation. This is why C and E are the most likely factors to prevent him from approaching Vineeta. Therefore, Option D is the correct answer.

Option B is the best rationale for Vineeta. Here’s why:

Option A- Price Comparison: Even if a similar SUV from Panther might have been cheaper without an extended warranty, it doesn't negate the fact that the warranty is now covering Vineeta's repairs.

Option C- Time Passed: The time gap doesn't change the fact that the mistake benefited Vineeta.

Option D is entirely focused on the past (she wasn't aware). It doesn't address the current situation or a potential solution.

Option E- Shyam's Need: This puts the responsibility on Shyam to ask for the money back, rather than Vineeta taking the initiative to return it, especially since the mistake benefitted her.

Option C is the best answer for the following reasons:

1) It weakens the alumni's leverage. If their success relies on ABC's reputation for quality graduates, they have a vested interest in upholding the school's standards, including a fair admissions process.

2) It shifts the power dynamic. By highlighting the alumni's need for ABC's reputation, the director can frame the conversation around cooperation for mutual benefit, rather than succumbing to pressure.

Option A highlights the alumni's importance. It emphasizes their role in attracting recruiters, potentially making the director feel pressured to appease them to maintain that connection.

Option B doesn't directly address the admissions issue. Guest faculty roles are separate from admissions decisions, and having alumni involved could even be seen as a positive sign of engagement.

Option D is a good option, but option C is even stronger. While it shows there's no precedent for alumni interference, it doesn't address the alumni's own motivations.

Option E shows the director hasn't given in before, but it doesn't address the current pressure. The alumni might be more forceful this time, and the director needs a reason to justify saying no again.

Option C is the best answer as the alumni's awareness of ABC's "retainable talent pool" directly addresses a key metric for many business school rankings: graduate employability. If alumni consistently return to recruit because ABC graduates stay with companies (low turnover), it demonstrates the school's effectiveness in producing valuable employees. This is a strong selling point for rankings that focus on placement success.

By focusing on alumni satisfaction with the quality of graduates, the director can shift the focus away from rankings that might not be as relevant to ABC's niche market and concentrate on maintaining the school's core strength - job placement.

Option A: This doesn't matter for rankings. Research is typically a factor for faculty-focused rankings, not those aimed at student placement.

Option B: Similar to A, student satisfaction might be a factor in some rankings, but it's not the main focus for placement-oriented rankings.

Option D: A quick placement record can be a positive for rankings that consider efficiency, but it's not the sole factor.

Option E: Past performance doesn't necessarily predict future results. However, it highlights the potential challenge of breaking into the top ranks.

Option D is the best answer because it directly ties placement, the students' primary goal, to class attendance. An 85% threshold is a significant hurdle, forcing students to prioritize attending classes. This incentivizes them to be physically present and potentially more engaged to meet the attendance requirement.

Option A: "Thank you" notes wouldn't incentivize attendance and might seem patronizing.

Option B: Financial penalties might demotivate students or create financial hardship. It wouldn't address the core issue of engagement.

Option C: While appreciating good faculty is a good idea, it doesn't directly address the student attendance issue.

Option E: Rewarding participation is a good long-term strategy, but it wouldn't immediately address the attendance problem.

Let us examine each piece of information individually.

Statement A highlights the potential frequency of needing repairs, making a mass replacement at Level 3 more appealing if a malfunction occurs.

Statement B emphasizes the domino effect of a single malfunction. Replacing all valves at Level 3 upon a malfunction can prevent further issues with neighboring valves.

Statement C: While a discount is always attractive, it doesn't directly address the justification for replacing all valves at Level 3 upon a single malfunction.

Statement D: Since Level 3 is the deepest and most challenging location, having GoValve, the specialists, readily available to perform the mass replacement after a malfunction becomes a significant advantage.

Statement E: This information (higher pressure risk near seabed) is generally relevant to blowout prevention but doesn't directly connect to the decision of replacing all valves at Level 3 upon malfunction. It focuses more on the overall risk of pressure buildup.

In conclusion, A (frequent malfunctions), B (domino effect on neighboring valves), and D (difficulty of Level 3 replacement) provide the most compelling reasons for DeepSea to accept the clause in the maintenance package, as they directly address the benefits of replacing all valves at Level 3 upon a single malfunction. So, Option A is the correct answer.

Let us consider the following statement: “A startup, SafeValve, has started importing a technologically superior brand of valves from abroad, which boasts a significant reduction in gas leakage.”

Now, if it was true that their existing valves are already following the strictest global industry standards of leakage protection their by ensuring their safety, it would undermine the main reason to switch to SafeValve. Therefore, Option E is the best answer.

Option A: Cost is a private concern, not a good public reason for rejection.

Option B focuses on DeepSea's existing relationship, not the new valves.

Option C downplays the new technology and doesn't address DeepSea's specific situation.

Option D, while could be considered a valid concern is not as strong of a reason as option E. Option E undermines the rationale behind the switch.

Option B is the best fit for the blanks in the sentence based purely on grammatical and logical sense.

Feeling like a fake can be a sign of growth, and clinging too tightly to what feels like one’s authentic self can hinder that growth. This statement suggests that sometimes, feeling out of place or like you’re not being true to yourself can actually be a sign that you’re growing and evolving. However, if you cling too tightly to your current sense of self, it could prevent you from embracing that growth.

This option fills in the blanks while maintaining the sentence’s grammatical structure and logical coherence.

Option C may seem like a good fit at first glance. From a grammatical and idiomatic perspective, the phrase “behaving like a fake” is not a common idiom or phrase, and it doesn’t quite convey a clear meaning. Also, the second part of the sentence suggests that clinging to one’s authentic self can “support” growth. However, in the context of the sentence, this seems contradictory. If behaving like a fake is a sign of improvement, then clinging to one’s authentic self would more likely hinder than support this improvement.

The alternative choices, which involve actions such as acting, performing, or operating like a fake, lack idiomatic coherence. Furthermore, they suggest ideas that either contradict each other or don’t fit the context of personal growth.