XAT 2025 Question Paper

In the context of the question, Aarya has faced a frustrating situation where the business school made an error by offering more admissions than available seats, leading to her being presented with a deferred admission or a full refund. Aarya is now questioning the integrity and reliability of the business school. The task is to identify which consideration would restore her faith in the institution. Only Option E helps with this cause: this response is the most relevant because it shows that the business school took full responsibility for its mistake (owning the error) and made efforts to resolve the situation in a way that helped the affected students. This is key in rebuilding trust, as it indicates a commitment to transparency and accountability. Typically, when organizations own up to their mistakes and offer assistance, it can help restore confidence in them, especially after an incident that could have damaged their reputation.

Option A is tangential to the question: while a deferment could be personally beneficial for Aarya, this response does not directly address the issue of the breach of trust caused by the school’s mistake. Options B and D suffer from a similar issue. The fact that the business school runs certain programs does not address the specific breach of trust Aarya has experienced. Similarly, the prevalence of the practice also need not assuage Aarya’s fears.

Option C compares Aarya’s situation to a different case, which could be seen as minimizing her current frustration; however, like the other options, it doesn’t focus on the specific actions taken by the business school to correct the mistake in Aarya’s case, which is central to her rebuilding faith in the institution.

Let us go option by option keeping in mind what the question expects of us, we need to find an option that makes sure Lisa is not singled out, understands the fact that she is still in her probationary period and is not finalized into the firm, makes sure that Lisa is respectful of everyone and does not violate trust. 

Option A: Seeking a meeting with Ned Flanders directly to suggest ending the practice risks singling Lisa out as someone questioning the organization’s culture. This is not ideal during her probationary period. This is the exact opposite of what the question is expecting us to do, this action will surely single out Lisa and will most definitely put her in trouble if Ned perceives it in the wrong way. 

Option B: Meeting a newcomer secretly to reveal the ritual breaches organizational ethics, could undermine trust, and might lead to disciplinary action if discovered. This action is highly unethical and can be seen as going against the firm in a very shrewd and cowardly way. 

Option C: Organizing a generic workshop on workplace politics does not directly address the issue of the ritual. It is unlikely to achieve Lisa's goal of reprieving newcomers from the stress of the ritual.

Option E: Remaining silent until her confirmation fails Lisa's sense of moral responsibility to help the newcomers and contradicts her goal of addressing the ritual.

Correct Option

Option D: By joining a team of lawyers and collectively petitioning the founders, Lisa aligns herself with a group, reducing the risk of being singled out. This approach demonstrates that her concerns are shared by others and are not a personal grievance. The collective effort allows her to contribute to a culture change while appearing to work within the organization's norms and respecting its values.

Let us go option by option and see which is the most suitable action for the described situation, 

Option A: Lisa did not send the email, nor is she directly responsible for someone else's actions. Taking accountability for something she did not do might make her appear insincere and set a precedent for accepting blame in future situations. This also does nothing to clarify her actual position to the founders or her peers.

Option B:  Ignoring the situation does not address the rumors surrounding Lisa’s involvement. This passive approach might allow the misunderstanding to persist, potentially damaging her reputation and relationships within the firm. It also risks her seeming indifferent or disengaged.

Option C: While this may seem like a direct response, addressing the entire firm could come across as defensive or overreactive, drawing unnecessary attention to the matter. It could also perpetuate the focus on the issue instead of defusing it, creating more questions about her motives and actions.

Option E: Apologizing for her opinion diminishes Lisa’s ability to voice her perspectives in the future. It also signals that dissenting viewpoints are not welcome, which could stifle healthy discussions in the organization. Moreover, a public apology implies guilt, even though Lisa is not responsible for the anonymous email.

Correct Option 

Option D: This option balances transparency with professionalism. By directly addressing the founders, Lisa can clarify her position in a controlled, private setting. She can honestly state her reservations about the ritual, which aligns with her earlier stance, while firmly denying any involvement with the anonymous email. This approach demonstrates integrity, accountability, and respect for the leadership, helping defuse the situation without unnecessary drama.

Let us go option by option to determine what is the best possible action that can be taken for the described situation, 

Option A: Simply sharing information on the website does little to address the root concerns about the ritual's execution. It’s passive and impersonal, failing to actively engage newcomers or offer them meaningful preparation for the challenges ahead. It also doesn't address the feedback about the ritual being outdated.

Option B: While involving a mental health professional can be valuable, handing over the design of the ritual entirely to them might dilute the professional essence of the process. The ritual is meant to simulate the real demands of the profession and outsourcing it to someone unfamiliar with the specific challenges of the legal field might result in a process that doesn’t align with the founders' objectives.

Option C: This option is reactive rather than addressing the core issue. Retaining the current ritual unchanged fails to acknowledge the concerns raised by the young lawyers about its archaic nature. Adding a mental health professional as an afterthought doesn’t make the ritual itself more relevant or empathetic.

Option E: While benchmarking against competitors can be helpful, relying too much on external practices might result in the firm losing its unique identity and approach. The ritual is deeply ingrained in the organization’s culture, and copying others’ methods may not capture the same impact or align with their goals. This action also risks losing the firms individuality.

Correct Option

Option D: This is the best choice because it strikes an ideal balance between preserving the ritual's intent and modernizing it to meet current expectations. By inviting suggestions from young lawyers, the founders demonstrate empathy and inclusivity, showing that they value feedback from those who recently experienced the ritual. This collaborative approach fosters a sense of ownership among employees, making them feel invested in the process while also ensuring that the ritual evolves in a way that resonates with contemporary sensibilities. Additionally, this option allows the firm to maintain the core purpose of the ritual which is preparing newcomers for the demands of the profession, while at the same time adapting its execution to be more relevant, effective, and aligned with the changing times. It is a thoughtful way to honor tradition without becoming stagnant.

We need to publish the article and select the reasoning that will most likely convince Ramya to proceed with the report. 

Option A: Even if this is true, Ramya herself would know there are reasons not to publish a report based on anonymous sources; keeping the legal consequences apart could harm the organisation's image. Overall, this is not a strong reason to go ahead with the report, but just trying to eliminate one of the deterrents. 

Option B: This is close but not necessarily correct. Just because it is time-sensitive, we can not proceed with an unverified report with anonymous sources. 

Option C: This serves the role we need. If Aditya has been a good reporter and his previous work has enhanced the Pluralists' reputation in the past, Ramya can put her faith in Aditya and publish the report without thorough investigation, given the circumstances and the need to unveil a possible scandal. 

Option D: This doesn't help the case, as the stem clearly states that Pluralist has a reputation for publishing articles that are not just for sensualization and would value its reporting standards higher. 

Option E: Competition should be the least of her worries since who is the first to publish and gather more headlines is not the aim of the report or the organisation. Though one of the options is a clear-cut answer to the problem at hand, C is the best choice, as Aditya's reputation and experience would help Ramya go ahead with his report with the least hesitation. 

Therefore, option C is the correct answer. 

We are essentially presented with a situation in which the article published is not entirely true and is raised in question. Although we have a reputation for higher reporting standards and not sensationalizing news, this poses a risk to the paper's reputation. 

Of the given options, we can eliminate C, as it simply assigns the blame to the people reporting. This does not help in any way. It does not matter who provided the information since we were publishing it; it was our responsibility to verify it. 

Option D is not only unethical (since nothing like this happened) but also against shifting the blame, and it is not a viable solution. 

Option E is also irrelevant, caimsing their journalist to be good at its work doe snot refute the accusations, additionally, does not make a change in public opinion and the mining company's position. 

The only way out of this is to accept responsibility for the error, leaving us with options A and B. 

Option B is not entirely incorrect. In case of an actual oversight from the reporter, the institute should consider firing the reporter since it is detrimental to the organisation. Here however, Aditya was not at fault, it was the employees that gave incorrect information. 

Option A is a better approach. Ramys accepts her haste in publishing the article, and as the editor's head, she also has some responsibility for the flat. 

Hence, Option A is the correct answer. 

We mentioned that Zubin is confident that further pursuit of the mining company will not yield any results. We must consider this before making our decision. 

Option A: Assigning him anonymously would not help him regain the confidence he has lost in this process. He wants to redeem himself, and working anonymously might not allow him to fully utilize his and the company's resources. 

Option B: This option is too impractical and irrelevant from the problem's perspective and can easily be eliminated. 

Option C: Although not entirely wrong, this goes against Zubin's beliefs that the mining project would not yield any results. It also keeps Aditya stuck on the same project, which is not good for him or the organisation. 

Option D: Although this is also a good option, this does not directly fulfil Aditya's need to redeem himself. We can look for a better choice. 

Option E: This is the best course of action. Not only will it help Aditya gain his lost reputation by working on another investigative project, but it will also help him move past the mining industry event that Zubin believes is futile at this point. 

Therefore, of all the given options, E serves the organisation's purpose, and Aditya is both the best and would be the correct answer. 

The correct answer is Option C, as it provides a balanced and sustainable solution to enable young trainers to gain more opportunities without compromising client relationships. By mandating that senior trainers allow young trainers to handle at least 30% of their training sessions, Dheeraj ensures that young trainers gain hands-on experience while senior trainers remain the primary point of contact with clients. This gradual introduction of young trainers ensures client satisfaction, as the expertise of senior trainers continues to drive the training while young trainers are given the chance to prove their mettle. This approach benefits both the young trainers, by giving them exposure, and the clients, by maintaining trust and quality service.

Option A, which suggests exploring clients who are comfortable working with young trainers, is not a practical solution. There is no guarantee that enough clients would agree to work with inexperienced trainers, especially when the organization's reputation is tied to the expertise of its senior trainers. Limiting young trainers to "comfortable" clients may also restrict their exposure to smaller or less impactful projects, failing to address the CEO's concern of giving them broader opportunities.

Option B, requesting repeat clients to switch to young trainers due to their energy, risks damaging relationships with clients who have developed trust with senior trainers. Clients typically value consistency and proven expertise in behavioural training, and such a forced switch might lead to dissatisfaction or even loss of business. Additionally, the assumption that clients would prioritize "energy" over experience undermines the quality standards expected in this field.

Option D, assigning repeat projects from satisfied clients to young trainers, is a risky move. Repeat clients usually request senior trainers based on their past satisfaction and replacing them with young trainers may result in dissatisfaction or erode trust. This option does not provide a structured transition for young trainers and could jeopardize the reputation of Humane Dynamix by prematurely assigning high-stakes projects to less experienced trainers.

Option E, requesting the CEO to urge senior trainers to give up some of their existing clients for the sake of others’ careers, is impractical and unfair. Senior trainers have earned the trust of clients through their expertise and efforts, and asking them to give up clients could create resentment among senior trainers. Additionally, it risks alienating clients who value continuity and established relationships with their preferred trainers.

Hence, Option C is the best solution as it ensures a structured and client-friendly approach to integrating young trainers into training programs. It allows young trainers to gain practical experience while keeping senior trainers involved, maintaining client satisfaction and the organization’s reputation.

The correct answer is Option E, as it provides Sudha with a professional and constructive way to address her concerns. By explaining to Dheeraj that assigning her well-established clients to novice trainers might lead to the loss of those clients, she highlights a valid risk to the organization’s reputation and revenue. This approach aligns with the organization’s priority of maintaining client satisfaction and repeat business while addressing Sudha’s concern about her reduced training hours and revenue loss. Since Dheeraj’s role as the TAO involves balancing the CEO’s directive to train young trainers with ensuring business continuity, Sudha’s input directly supports his decision-making process without being confrontational or disruptive.

Option A, where Sudha approaches the CEO to request Dheeraj’s removal as TAO, is overly drastic and unprofessional. While Sudha may be frustrated, such an action would be perceived as personal and vindictive, rather than focused on the organization’s goals. Dheeraj is carrying out the CEO’s directive to give young trainers more opportunities, and targeting him instead of addressing the issue directly is unlikely to garner support. Moreover, this option risks damaging her relationship with both the CEO and Dheeraj.

Option B, contacting client companies and asking them to reject Dheeraj’s assigned trainers, is unethical and undermines the organization’s internal structure. Such behavior would create unnecessary conflict between the clients and the organization, while also eroding trust between Sudha and Dheeraj. This option not only harms Humane Dynamix’s reputation but also jeopardizes the morale of young trainers and the collaborative work environment within the company. It does nothing to address the root issue constructively.

Option C, confronting the CEO to argue that his concerns should not be addressed at the cost of her revenues, is unlikely to be effective. While Sudha has valid concerns, directly opposing the CEO’s directive without offering an alternative solution could make her appear self-centered and resistant to change. The CEO is already aware of the need to balance young trainer development with client satisfaction, and simply complaining about revenue loss does not contribute to resolving the issue in a productive manner.

Option D, proposing to train young trainers in her innovative methods to make them independent in the future, is a constructive suggestion but does not address Sudha’s immediate concerns. While mentoring young trainers would help them develop, this does not resolve the current issue of Sudha losing clients and training hours. Furthermore, this option assumes Sudha is willing to take on the responsibility of mentoring, which may not align with her immediate priorities.

Hence, Option E is the best choice as it allows Sudha to address her concerns directly with Dheeraj in a professional and constructive manner. By framing her argument around the risk of losing clients and revenue, she aligns her concerns with the organization’s goals, increasing the likelihood that Dheeraj will reconsider his approach while maintaining client relationships and organizational harmony.

The correct answer is Option B. This option balances the client’s needs with the organization’s goals of nurturing young trainers. It addresses the client’s dissatisfaction by ensuring Nandini, a senior trainer, oversees future sessions while giving Kirti the opportunity to learn and improve through co-training. This collaborative and constructive approach maintains client trust, supports Kirti’s development, and aligns with Humane Dynamix’s vision.

Option A is wrong as it undermines the organization’s goal of developing young trainers and encourages clients to bypass internal policies. While it might win back the client temporarily, it portrays Nandini as self-serving and could harm teamwork.

Option C is inappropriate as it escalates the issue unnecessarily, reflecting poorly on Nandini and Dheeraj. It shifts responsibility to the client instead of addressing the problem directly, which does not help improve Kirti’s performance or regain client trust effectively.

Option D is counterproductive as it isolates Kirti without offering her a chance to improve. This could demotivate her and conflicts with the organization’s objective of providing opportunities to new trainers while failing to rebuild the client relationship.

Option E is confrontational and risks damaging Nandini’s relationship with Dheeraj. It highlights the issue but fails to propose a solution, leaving the client dissatisfied and Kirti unsupported.

Hence, Option B is the best choice as it tactfully resolves client concerns, supports Kirti’s growth, and aligns with organizational goals, while the other options either fail to address the issue fully or create further challenges.