Question

The following facts were observed by an analytics team hired by the government to study the extant situation.
1. There was a four-fold increase in the number of researchers leaving the organization in 2014.
2. A researcher died while on duty.
3. The quality of articles published declined substantially.
4. The average number of people accessing an article decreased by 2%.
Which of the following options would justify the government’s intention to DISCONTINUE the scheme?

• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 and 3
• C. 3 only
• D. 4 only
• E. 3 and 4
• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 only
• C. 2 and 3
• D. 1 and 3
• J. 1, 2 and 3
• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 only
• C. 2 and 3
• D. 1 and 3
• O. 1, 2 and 3

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Identify the government’s perspective.
The government would discontinue a scheme if it fails to achieve its main objective — in this case, the production of high-quality research articles. Hence, the key factor to look for is the decline in the quality of output.
Step 2: Analyze each fact.
- (1) Increase in the number of researchers leaving — While concerning, staff turnover alone does not necessarily justify discontinuing the entire scheme, as replacements may be hired.
- (2) Researcher’s death — A tragic event, but it is an isolated incident and not related to the scheme’s viability or effectiveness.
- (3) Decline in quality of published articles — This directly undermines the purpose of the scheme, as poor-quality output means the scheme is not fulfilling its goal.
- (4) 2% decrease in readership — This is a minor statistical dip and does not justify shutting down the scheme.
Step 3: Conclude.
Only the substantial decline in the quality of articles (fact 3) is a valid reason for the government to discontinue the scheme.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (C) 3 only}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand the context.
The director is trying to persuade the government to review its stance, presumably regarding researchers’ pay or benefits. A reasonable government would require logical, policy-relevant arguments rather than unrelated claims.
Step 2: Examine each argument.
1. “Most famous researchers are also the highest paid.” — This is a broad generalization, not supported with evidence relevant to policymaking. It does not establish why government policy should change. \Rightarrow Weak.
2. “American institute of research gives extra benefits to its scientists.” — While factual, this is merely a reference to another country’s practice. It does not prove that the same should necessarily apply in the given context. \Rightarrow Weak.
3. “This year’s highest paid researcher had won the Nobel Prize.” — This is an anecdotal correlation, not a causal argument. High pay does not automatically produce Nobel Prizes, so it is not convincing. \Rightarrow Weak.
Step 3: Identify what is UNLIKELY to convince.
Since all three arguments are either generalizations, irrelevant comparisons, or anecdotal, none would persuade a reasonable government. Hence, the correct option is 1, 2 and 3.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (E) 1, 2 and 3}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1 (Understand the role of auditors).
- Auditors are expected to ensure financial transparency and accountability.
- Their role is to check compliance, not to obstruct policy or benefits decisions.
Step 2 (Evaluate each suggestion).
1. “Auditors need not be allowed to object to extra benefits schemes.” This is reasonable because decisions about employee benefits are primarily managerial/policy issues, not financial irregularities. So, it is valid.
2. “Auditors need not pin-point sudden increase in expenditure.” This is wrong. One of the core responsibilities of auditors is to highlight unusual expenditures. Ignoring this undermines financial discipline.
3. “Auditors need not be consulted before taking any policy level decision.” This is reasonable because auditors are not policymakers; they only review implementation.
Step 3 (Combine).
- Valid suggestions = (1) and (3). - Hence, the director should agree the most with option (D).
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (D) 1 and 3}} \]