Decision Making Questions and Answers

Answer: C

The case is referred to the Principal.

Ashok Garg, born 3 October 1973, was 20 on 1 September 1994, which meets the age rule. He passed XII Science with Biology with 90% (over 60%) and can pay Rs.20000. He fails only the entrance mark, 60% against the 70% required. Rule (v) covers this: a candidate who meets everything but (iii) and has 90% in XII is referred to the Principal.

Answer: A

Asha Thakur is admitted.

Born 20 October 1975, she was 18 years and 10 months old on 1 September 1994, so the age rule is met. Her XII Science with Biology mark of 68% is above 60%, her entrance mark of 75% is above 70%, and she can pay Rs.20000. All the criteria are met.

Answer: B

Pankaj Goel is not admitted.

The paper says he was 17 on 11 September 1993, and the key reads this as his turning 17 on that date, so that he reaches 18 only on 11 September 1994, ten days after the cut-off of 1 September 1994. On that reading he fails the age rule (ii). Rules (v) and (vi) relax only the entrance mark and the fee, not the age, so his 90% in XII and his 75% in the entrance test do not save him.

The wording is loose, because a boy aged 17 on 11 September 1993 might have turned 18 before 1 September 1994. The question is meant to make him fall just short of 18, and the key follows that intention.

Answer: B

Meeta Chandra is not admitted.

Born 7 November 1978, she was only 15 on 1 September 1994, which fails the age rule (ii). Her marks (70% in the entrance test, 60% in XII) and her ability to pay Rs.20000 are enough, but rules (v) and (vi) relax only the entrance mark and the fee, so nothing rescues the age.

Answer: A

Amandeep is selected.

He is an Indian citizen, aged 23 on 5 September 1997 (born February 1974), a graduate, and has lived in Delhi since 1987, which is more than five years. His family income is his father's Rs.800 a month, which is Rs.9600 a year, well within Rs.50,000. Nothing is said about dealerships, but as an unemployed graduate the conditions on dealerships (vi) and (vii) may be waived. Every condition is met, so he is selected.

Answer: B

Kishan Gopal is not selected.

He holds a dealership in Tamsha Oil Company, which breaks condition (vi). The waiver in (ix) is for unemployed graduates only, and he is a matriculate with a dealership. His age (30 on 5 September 1997), nationality, education, residence and income would all pass, but one failed condition without a waiver or a referral rule is enough to refuse him.

Answer: C

The case is referred to the Managing Director.

Balvinder Singh's family income of Rs.60000 is over the Rs.50,000 limit in (v), but he works in a State Corporation, and under (viii) the income restriction does not apply to such persons, though the case must be referred to the Managing Director. His age (23), nationality, graduation, residence (7 years) and dealership position all satisfy the conditions.

Answer: D

The case is referred to the Chairman.

Chaluka lives in Mumbai, so he fails the Delhi residence condition (iv). But he belongs to SC, and under (x) a person of SC or ST who is not a resident of Delhi may have the case referred to the Chairman. His age (21 on 5 September 1997, born March 1976), education, income of Rs.20000 and absence of any dealership are in order.

Answer: A

Naresh Saini is selected.

He is an Indian aged 27, a graduate, a resident of Delhi since 1988 (nine years), with a family income of Rs.16000, below the limit. The paragraph says nothing of dealerships, but as an unemployed graduate he gets the waiver of (vi) and (vii), so every condition is met.

Answer: C

The case is referred to the Managing Director.

Pran Chaturvedi's family income of Rs.75000 exceeds Rs.50,000, but he works in a State Corporation (Haryana), so (viii) removes the income restriction and sends the case to the Managing Director. He is 24 (born June 1973), a citizen, has passed Senior Secondary (above matric), has lived in Delhi for exactly five years, which is "not less than 5", and he and his relatives hold no dealership.