Sundaresan was a professor of Corporate Responsibility at a premium management institution. As a requirement of his course, students had to synthesize sustainability challenges, faced by thermal power companies and submit an assignment on them. Though it was an individual assignment, some students sought permission from Sundaresan to work on the assignment as a team. Sundaresan knew that collaboration fosters peer learning, and therefore, allowed them to work in teams. However, he mandated that a team should not exceed three members. While 15 students elected to work individually, other 15 formed teams of three each, and another 10 formed teams of two members each.
As assignment deadline came closer, Sundaresan was approached by Abbas Warram, who chose to work in a team of three members. He informed Sundaresan that Venkamma, his team member, distressed by the death of her grandmother, could not work on her bit of the assignment. Abbas requested for a deadline extension so that she could finish her part of the assignment. By then, many students who were working alone had already submitted their assignments.
Which of the following actions by Sundaresan is the MOST appropriate, given the circumstances?
Which of the following actions by Sundaresan is the MOST appropriate, given the circumstances?
- Disband the team and ask each student to work individually
- Warn Abbas that such issues should not be flagged to the professor and should be handled within the team
- Give extra time to Venkamma to work individually and ask the other two to stick to the original deadline as a team
- Extend the deadline for the team while imposing a one-grade penalty for the deadline extension
- Give the students a deadline extension, but add an extra assignment for the team as a new requirement
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
Let's analyze the given scenario and determine the most appropriate action Sundaresan should take:
- Context Understanding: Sundaresan has allowed students to collaborate on what was initially an individual assignment, recognizing the value of collaboration in fostering peer learning. However, he has set clear parameters such as a team limit of three members.
- Problem Identification: Abbas Warram's team has encountered a problem where one of their members, Venkamma, is unable to work due to personal distress. Abbas is seeking a deadline extension to accommodate Venkamma's situation.
Now, let's evaluate each option to determine the most appropriate response:
- Disband the team and ask each student to work individually: This option is quite drastic as it forces students to abandon their collaborative work and may result in unfairness, considering some students have already completed the assignment solo.
- Warn Abbas that such issues should not be flagged to the professor and should be handled within the team: This encourages teams to develop problem-solving skills and handle their internal issues without constantly relying on external interventions. Additionally, since teamwork was optional and encouraged for collaborative learning, dealing with minor setbacks independently is a part of that learning process.
- Give extra time to Venkamma to work individually and ask the other two to stick to the original deadline as a team: This option creates a discrepancy in how the team operates and might contradict the idea of collaboration, especially when teamwork was established as part of the learning objective.
- Extend the deadline for the team while imposing a one-grade penalty for the deadline extension: Although this punishes the whole team, it fails to address the team's capacity to solve problems internally. Additionally, it might not be fair to the two students who submitted on time.
- Give the students a deadline extension, but add an extra assignment for the team as a new requirement: Introducing additional work as a penalty might demotivate students and adds unnecessary complexity, rather than developing the team's independence in resolving conflicts.
Conclusion: The most appropriate action, given the circumstances, is to warn Abbas that such issues should not be flagged to the professor and should be handled within the team. This approach not only empowers students to develop conflict resolution skills but also respects the autonomy of teams, aligning with the educational goal of fostering collaboration while maintaining fairness.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Identify the Problem
Abbas requested a deadline extension because one of his team members, Venkamma, faced a personal crisis. However, many students working individually had already submitted their assignments on time, despite handling the full workload.
Step 2: Consider Fairness
- If Sundaresan grants an extension only to Abbas’s team, it creates unfair advantage over individuals and other groups.
- Extending the deadline for the entire class would be unfair to those who already submitted before the deadline.
- Penalizing the team immediately is harsh, since two members have completed their part responsibly.
Step 3: Team Responsibility
Working in a team means shared responsibility. If one member faces difficulty, the other members are expected to redistribute the workload. This is a core principle of teamwork: \[ \text{Team members must adapt and cover for each other’s shortcomings.} \]
Step 4: Ethical Decision
The professor should not intervene in internal team management issues. Abbas’s request for an extension is inappropriate. The appropriate response is to remind him that such matters should be resolved within the team, not by seeking special consideration.
Step 5: Conclusion
Therefore, the MOST appropriate action is to warn Abbas that such issues should be handled internally within the team and not flagged to the professor. This maintains fairness across the class and reinforces accountability in teamwork.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Warn Abbas that such issues should be managed within the team and not flagged to the professor.}} \]
When Sundaresan was about to grade the assignments, he received a request from the class representative regarding the students who worked individually. The request was to give those students additional marks because they handled the entire workload. This would improve their course grade significantly.
Which of the following is the MOST appropriate action by Sundaresan to mark the assignments?
Which of the following is the MOST appropriate action by Sundaresan to mark the assignments?
- Convert the assignment into a non-graded assignment because both the individuals and the teams worked on the same assignment
- Treat both individual work and team work equally
- Reduce marks for those who worked in teams by 10%
- Give 10% extra marks to all those who worked individually
- Divide the total marks awarded to a team by the number of team members
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
This question involves evaluating the most appropriate action for Sundaresan when grading assignments of students who worked individually versus those who worked in teams. Let's analyze the situation and the options provided to find the most suitable action.
- Understanding the Context:
- Sundaresan, a professor of Corporate Responsibility, has assigned students to work on sustainability challenges faced by thermal power companies.
- While it was initially an individual assignment, Sundaresan allowed some students to work in teams, considering the value of peer learning.
- There were 15 students who worked individually, 15 students who formed teams of three each, and 10 students who formed teams of two.
- Options Analysis:
- Convert the assignment into a non-graded assignment: This option may demotivate students who put effort into the assignment, especially if they expected their work to be graded.
- Treat both individual work and teamwork equally: This maintains consistency, fairness, and acknowledges both forms of work as valid, without penalizing or overly rewarding any group.
- Reduce marks for those who worked in teams by 10%: This penalizes team efforts and discourages collaboration, which Sundaresan initially encouraged.
- Give 10% extra marks to all those who worked individually: While this may seem fair to individuals, it undermines the benefits of collaboration which were previously endorsed.
- Divide the total marks awarded to a team by the number of team members: This option can result in inequality if each member’s contribution is not equivalent, leading to fairness issues within the teams.
- Conclusion:
- Considering the values of fairness and encouragement of peer learning, the most appropriate action is to treat both individual and team efforts equally.
- This respects the effort of individuals while valuing team collaboration, aligning with Sundaresan's initial decision to allow team formation for enhanced learning.
Thus, the most appropriate action for Sundaresan is to treat both individual work and teamwork equally.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Identify the Core Issue
The concern raised is about fairness in grading between students who worked individually and those who worked in teams. The assumption is that individual students deserve extra marks since they bore the full workload.
Step 2: Analyze Fairness
Academic grading must be based on quality of work, not on whether the student worked alone or in a group. If extra marks are given solely for working alone, it introduces bias and undermines the principle of equal evaluation.
Step 3: Evaluate Possible Consequences
- If extra marks are awarded → unfair advantage to individuals, devalues teamwork.
- If marks are reduced for teams → punishes collaborative efforts, which is not correct.
- Equal treatment ensures that grading focuses only on academic merit.
Step 4: Apply Academic Integrity Principles
The principle is: \[ \text{Marks should reflect the quality, originality, and completeness of work, not the number of contributors.} \] Thus, the only fair action is to assess all submissions on the same scale, regardless of group size.
Step 5: Conclusion
The most appropriate action for Sundaresan is to treat both individual and team work equally while grading. This ensures fairness, consistency, and avoids bias in academic evaluation.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Treat both individual work and team work equally}} \]
Sundaresan was going through the submitted assignments. Team 9, with three members, had impressive exhibits and charts. Later, he discovered that Team 13, with three members, also had the same exhibits and charts. He realized that one of the teams had copied from the other. Hence, he informed both the teams that he would award an F-grade (fail grade) to both the teams for copying. Later that evening, Aashi from Team 9 called and admitted to sharing exhibits and charts with Aanvi of Team13. Further, she mentioned that Aanvi could not put enough efforts since she lost significant amount of time due to COVID-19. Therefore, Aanvi requested for help. However, Aanvi assured Aashi that she would not reproduce the shared content. Aashi requested Sundaresan to punish her and Aanvi and spare others as they were not involved.
Which of the following actions by Sundaresan is the MOST appropriate?
Which of the following actions by Sundaresan is the MOST appropriate?
- Punish both the teams by giving F-grades
- Award an F-grade to both Aashi and Aanvi, and spare others
- Ask both the teams to work on an extra assignment to avoid an F-grade.
- Spare both the teams as such a confession is rare
- Punish Aanvi with an F-grade and spare others
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The scenario described presents an ethical challenge in an academic setting regarding plagiarism and copying of assignments. Let's analyze the situation step-by-step:
- Two teams, Team 9 and Team 13, submitted identical exhibits and charts. This led Sundaresan to suspect copying and decide to give both teams an F-grade.
- Later, Aashi from Team 9 admitted to sharing the exhibits and charts with Aanvi from Team 13, who was unable to contribute sufficiently due to recovering from COVID-19. Despite an assurance from Aanvi not to reproduce the shared content, duplication occurred.
- Aashi requested Sundaresan to punish only her and Aanvi, sparing the other team members as they were not involved in the copying.
Now, we need to evaluate Sundaresan's possible actions based on the options given:
- **Punish both the teams by giving F-grades:** This action enforces the rule against plagiarism universally and maintains academic integrity by treating both teams equally responsible for the submission.
- **Award an F-grade to both Aashi and Aanvi, and spare others:** This approach directly addresses the individuals involved but might set a precedent where team members can potentially evade responsibility by claiming lack of involvement.
- **Ask both the teams to work on an extra assignment to avoid an F-grade:** While this encourages learning, it may not sufficiently address the breach of academic integrity.
- **Spare both the teams as such a confession is rare:** While commendable, this option might undermine the rules on plagiarism if students believe confessions can nullify penalties.
- **Punish Aanvi with an F-grade and spare others:** This focuses solely on the recipient of the copied work, ignoring Aashi's role in the sharing, which might be unjust.
Considering the importance of enforcing academic discipline and the need to uphold the principles of academic responsibility, the most appropriate action is:
Punish both the teams by giving F-grades
This option serves as a deterrent against future incidents of plagiarism, ensures fair treatment of all teams, and upholds the academic integrity of the assignment submission process.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Identify the Ethical Problem
Academic dishonesty has occurred because identical exhibits and charts were found in two teams’ assignments. This is a case of plagiarism/collusion, which directly violates academic integrity principles.
Step 2: Analyze Aashi’s Admission
Aashi admitted that she shared the material with Aanvi. Even though her intention was to help, the responsibility lies on both teams because the work submitted was identical. Academic guidelines do not allow personal circumstances to justify copying.
Step 3: Evaluate Fairness
If Sundaresan punishes only Aashi and Aanvi, then the other members of Team 13 still benefitted from copied content, which is unfair to other students who followed rules. Allowing resubmission or giving warnings would dilute the seriousness of the violation.
Step 4: Apply the Principle of Equality
University/college academic policies usually state: \[ \text{If plagiarism is detected, all members of the teams involved are equally responsible.} \] This ensures fairness and deters future violations.
Step 5: Conclusion
Therefore, the MOST appropriate action for Sundaresan is to punish both teams equally by awarding them F-grades. This upholds academic integrity, sends a strong message against plagiarism, and maintains fairness among all students.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{Punish both the teams by giving F-grades}} \]
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are letters ‘e’ taken from four popular logos, arranged in a sequence. Which of the options is the correct sequence?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are four options, each showing consecutive frames representing the movement of a pendulum of an old-style wall clock for an animation movie. Which is the correct option?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Acrucial moderating factor in how people experience comparisons is self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to interpret upward comparison as informative rather than threatening. They are more resilient in the face of others’ success and more likely to believe they can reach their own goals. In contrast, people with low self-esteem are more prone to interpret comparison as judgment, reinforcing negative self-views and triggering feelings of inadequacy.
This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing loop. People with high self-esteem are less vulnerable to upward comparison, which intensifies those doubts. Those with a secure sense of self are more likely to use comparison as a learning tool. The same external stimulus—a colleague’s achievements, a friend’s popularity—can have radically different effects depending on internal stability.
Self-esteem also influences how people choose their comparison targets. Research has found that individuals often engage in “selective comparison,” seeking out those who confirm their existing beliefs about themselves. This can become a subtle form of self-sabotage. Someone who feels unworthy may subconsciously seek out targets that reinforce that sense, perpetuating a narrative of inferiority. One of the most promising antidotes to social comparison is temporal comparison—evaluating oneself not against others, but against one’s own past. This method has been shown to increase motivation and satisfaction, especially when individuals can see concrete progress. Temporal comparison activates the same reward circuits as social comparison but avoids the threat systems associated with social ranking. It also reinforces agency: individuals focus on what they can control and improve rather than what others control. In therapeutic and coaching settings, temporal comparison is used to help clients build self-efficacy and track growth over time.
Moreover, people who focus on self-improvement rather than social dominance are less likely to fall into cycles of envy or self-pity. They can still use others as inspiration, but they do so without attaching their self-worth to the outcome. This is not to say they never compare—but that they focus on learning, rather than judgment. The most skilful approach to comparison may lie in eliminating it, but in reframing it as feedback. When we interpret comparison as information rather than a verdict, we can ask, “What can I learn from this?” This shift turns comparison into a growth tool. Teachers mentor their students, not as rivals. Psychologists emphasize that the key variable here is mindset.
A fixed mindset sees comparison as a threat. If someone else is better, it means we are worse. A growth mindset sees comparison as a map. If someone else has reached a certain level, it means the path exists. This reframing is not just a cognitive trick. It changes the emotional tone of comparison, making it more likely to inspire than to wound. Reframing also requires emotional regulation—the ability to notice an initial pang of envy or shame without reacting impulsively. With practice, individuals can learn to pause, reflect, and reinterpret their emotional responses. Over time, this builds resilience and self-trust, allowing comparison to become a learning tool rather than a cage.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in XAT exam
- An artificial swimming pool is circular and water is flowing clockwise at a speed of 3 km/hr. Two swimmers Ayub and Rana start from diametrically opposite points, Ayub in the anticlockwise direction and Rana in the clockwise direction. They first meet at a point such that Ayub has covered 60 m by that time. Their second meeting point is such that Rana has covered another 180 m after the first meeting point. If the speed of Rana in still water is 3 km/hr, find the time taken by Ayub to cover one full circle in the clockwise direction.
- XAT - 2026
- Time and Work
- Arrange the following generations from the oldest to the youngest:
1. Generation X
2. Silent Generation
3. Generation Alpha
4. Baby Boomers
5. Millennials
- XAT - 2026
- Current Affairs
- Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Brijbhushan, a microfinancier, lends money at the rate of Rs.10 per square meter to small farmers at a village. He charges an annual interest rate of 10%. All the farming plots in that village are rectangular, with areas varying between a minimum of 1000 square meters and a maximum of 10,000 square meters.
This year, Brijbhushan has lent money only to five farmers: Aditya, Binod, Chhuttan, Dabloo and Govind. The perimeter of Chhuttan’s plot is 250 meters, with the length and width being at a ratio of 4:1. Aditya’s plot has an area three times the area of Govind’s plot. The area of Aditya’s plot is also the average of the areas of Govind’s plot and Dabloo’s plot. The plots belonging to Aditya, Binod and Dabloo are of the same width, but of different lengths. Moreover, the length of Binod’s plot is the sum of the lengths of Aditya’s plot and Dabloo’s plot.- XAT - 2026
- Mensuration
Light Chemicals is an industrial paint supplier with presence in three locations: Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. The sunburst chart below shows the distribution of the number of employees of different departments of Light Chemicals. There are four departments: Finance, IT, HR and Sales. The employees are deployed in four ranks: junior, mid, senior and executive. The chart shows four levels: location, department, rank and gender (M: male, F: female). At every level, the number of employees at a location/department/rank/gender are proportional to the corresponding area of the region represented in the chart.
Due to some issues with the software, the data on junior female employees have gone missing. Notice that there are junior female employees in Mumbai HR, Sales and IT departments, Hyderabad HR department, and Bengaluru IT and Finance departments. The corresponding missing numbers are marked u, v, w, x, y and z in the diagram, respectively.
It is also known that:
a) Light Chemicals has a total of 210 junior employees.
b) Light Chemicals has a total of 146 employees in the IT department.
c) Light Chemicals has a total of 777 employees in the Hyderabad office.
d) In the Mumbai office, the number of female employees is 55.
- XAT - 2026
- Pie Charts
An investment company, Win Lose, recruit's employees to trade in the share market. For newcomers, they have a one-year probation period. During this period, the employees are given Rs. 1 lakh per month to invest the way they see fit. They are evaluated at the end of every month, using the following criteria:
1. If the total loss in any span of three consecutive months exceeds Rs. 20,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 3-month period,
2. If the total loss in any span of six consecutive months exceeds Rs. 10,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 6-month period.
Further, at the end of the 12-month probation period, if there are losses on their overall investment, their services are terminated.
Ratan, Shri, Tamal and Upanshu started working for Win Lose in January. Ratan was terminated after 4 months, Shri was terminated after 7 months, Tamal was terminated after 10 months, while Upanshu was not terminated even after 12 months. The table below, partially, lists their monthly profits (in Rs. ‘000’) over the 12-month period, where x, y and z are masked information.
Note:
• A negative profit value indicates a loss.
• The value in any cell is an integer.
Illustration: As Upanshu is continuing after March, that means his total profit during January-March (2z +2z +0) ≥
Rs.20,000. Similarly, as he is continuing after June, his total profit during January − June ≥
Rs.10,000, as well as his total profit during April-June ≥ Rs.10,000.
- XAT - 2026
- Logical and Analytical Reasoning Skills