Question

Purushottam sends a batch of sweets to the police station across the street every day. Ratan construed it as a bribe and wanted to stop this practice. Which of the following arguments,\(IF\ TRUE\), would BEST convince Ratan \(\underline{NOT}\) to give up this practice?

• A. In the last three years, three attempts to burgle Puru and Sons were effectively foiled by the police.
• B. Each policeman receives only two pieces of sweet, too small to be considered a bribe.
• C. The police in return send two policemen in mufti to mingle with the customers during rush hours to prevent pickpockets.
• D. Every day, Purushottam also sends a batch of sweets to the school next to the station, an orphanage nearby and the temple at the end of the street.
• E. Purushottam’s competitor Uttampurush who runs a sweetshop in the same street and his neighbour Mahapurush who runs a samosa stall, both do similar things every day.
• A. 1 and 3
• B. 1 and 4
• C. 2 and 3
• D. 2 and 5
• J. 4 and 5
• A. 1 and 2
• B. 2 and 4
• C. 2 and 5
• D. 3 and 4
• O. 4 and 5

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

To convince Ratan \(\underline{NOT}\) to give up the practice of sending sweets to the police station, we need to find an argument that demonstrates this action is not a bribe but rather a part of Purushottam's regular practice or goodwill gesture. Let's evaluate the options:

Options	Analysis
In the last three years, three attempts to burgle Puru and Sons were effectively foiled by the police.	This option implies a possible motive for bribing, as the sweets could be seen as a reward for police protection.
Each policeman receives only two pieces of sweet, too small to be considered a bribe.	This argument highlights the small quantity but doesn't eliminate the perception of bribery completely.
The police in return send two policemen in mufti to mingle with the customers during rush hours to prevent pickpockets.	This reciprocal action suggests a quid pro quo relationship, supporting the bribe interpretation.
Every day, Purushottam also sends a batch of sweets to the school next to the station, an orphanage nearby, and the temple at the end of the street.	This suggests that sending sweets is a general practice and not specifically targeted as a bribe to the police.
Purushottam’s competitor Uttampurush who runs a sweetshop in the same street and his neighbour Mahapurush who runs a samosa stall, both do similar things every day.	This argument indicates a common practice in the business community, reducing its exclusivity as bribery, but doesn't directly relate to Purushottam's intentions.

The best argument is: Every day, Purushottam also sends a batch of sweets to the school next to the station, an orphanage nearby, and the temple at the end of the street. This option shows consistency in Purushottam's actions across different recipients, indicating a general practice rather than a targeted bribe.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand the concern.
Ratan is worried about the health risks and safety issues arising from consuming sweets that are close to expiry and repackaged. Thus, the arguments that would most likely convince him must directly address safety and risk concerns.
Step 2: Evaluate each argument.
- (1) “These sweets are consumed the same day and therefore there is no cause for worry.” — This directly addresses the safety concern by suggesting the sweets don’t stay long enough to become harmful.
- (2) “Reduced prices give enough indication…” — This is about transparency, but it does not address the concern of health risk.
- (3) “Preferred by those who cannot afford full price…” — This focuses on affordability, not on health/safety.
- (4) “In the past 30 years not a single person has reported ill…” — Strong evidence of safety, directly reassuring Ratan that consumption is not harmful.
- (5) “Repacking and selling is a common practice.” — A statement of commonality, but it does not guarantee safety.
Step 3: Conclude.
The combination that directly tackles the son’s concern about health consequences is: \[ 1 \;\; \text{and} \;\; 4 \] \[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (B) 1 and 4}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Identify what would rebut “core, loyal, personal connect.”
To overturn the privilege, Pramod must show that these buyers are neither loyal nor core and that the price concession is being misused.
Step 2: Evaluate each statement’s force.
1 (rich customers) — income level does not address loyalty; weak.
2 (they often buy elsewhere at market price) — directly shows lack of loyalty and that they {can} pay market price. Strong.
3 (don’t recognise/ greet) — social nicety; weak indicator of loyalty.
4 (not at the marriage) — personal event; irrelevant to pricing/loyalty.
5 (they buy at concessional price for {others}) — shows privilege leakage/misuse, undermining “core customer” rationale. Strong.
Step 3: Pick the strongest convincing combo.
2 \Rightarrow not loyal and price-capable; 5 \Rightarrow misuse of concession. Together they dismantle the “core & loyal” justification and support charging market price to all.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (C) 2 and 5}} \]