Question

Indian government may hold top executives responsible if state-run power companies fail to meet performance targets and punish them with fines and transfers. Performance parameters are aimed at ensuring that at least the reduced target of 62,000 MW of generation capacity addition is achieved before the end of the 11th Plan.
While the target for the 11th five-year plan has already been scaled down by the government from 78,500 MW, in the first three years of the plan only 22,302 MW of fresh capacity was achieved.
If you were the chairman of one of these power PSUs, which of the following statements (all of which are assumed to be true) could best be used in order to strengthen your case against the government holding top executives responsible?
i. The labour unions, owing allegiance to ruling party at the Center, are not allowing work to progress with their demands for wage hikes that are untenable.
ii. The actions of the mid-level management are not in line with the objectives laid down by the top management.
iii. The delays have been due to difficulties in obtaining funds at reasonable interest rates on account of the recessionary conditions.
iv. We are not to blame. The government is not doing enough to ensure availability of sufficient fuel to power the existing plants, let alone the new plants.
v. The government had ignored the infrastructure availability like roads etc., and environmental clearances required for such projects and therefore set an unrealistic target to begin with, and the revised target is also unrealistic as well.

• A. i and ii
• B. i and iii
• C. i, iii and iv
• D. ii, iv and v
• E. i, ii, iii, iv and v

Hint:

In such reasoning questions, focus on selecting reasons that are external, uncontrollable factors which genuinely weaken the responsibility of the accused party, while avoiding excuses that are too aggressive or self-contradictory.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understand the context.
The government is holding top executives responsible for failing to meet power generation targets. To defend themselves, the executives need to show that external or uncontrollable factors (not their own direct failures) caused the underperformance.

Step 2: Evaluate each statement.
- (i) Labour unions linked to the ruling party are obstructing progress → This highlights political and labour issues outside the executives’ control. Strong defense. - (ii) Mid-level management not aligned with objectives → This is an internal management failure and still falls under top executives’ responsibility. Weak defense. - (iii) Delays due to difficulty in obtaining funds at reasonable rates because of recession → This is an external economic factor outside executives’ control. Strong defense. - (iv) Claiming “We are not to blame” and pointing fingers at government fuel policy → Too aggressive in tone; not ideal as a logical defense. Less persuasive. - (v) Government ignored infrastructure/clearance issues and set unrealistic targets → Talks about target-setting, but not directly about performance of executives during execution. Less relevant as a defense.

Step 3: Select the best defense points.
The strongest and most relevant defense statements are: - (i) Labour union obstruction. - (iii) Fund shortages due to recession. \[ \boxed{\text{Answer: B (i and iii)}} \]