A question in XAT 2012 Question Paper with Answers has been updated:
Lankawala, another contractor, when faced with the new supervisor's demand to reduce prices for government work, asked him to guarantee that no bribes would be taken, and only then prices would be reduced. This was said in front of everyone. At this the supervisor forced Lankawala out of the meeting and threatened to black-list him. Lankawala did not say anything and walked away. Blacklisting of a contractor by one government department implied that Lankawala would not be able to participate in any government departments' works.
In late evening, the city was abuzz with the news that the supervisor's dead body was seen on the railway tracks. In the investigations that followed, no one who attended the meeting recounted the happenings in the meeting to the police. Getting involved in murder cases could lead to unpredictable outcomes such as becoming the potential suspect, or an accessory to the crime. Furthermore, cases could drag on for years, and one would have to appear in court as witnesses in response to court's summons. This, for a contractor, was a serious threat to his business due to the disruptions created. However, Naresh wanted to speak out but was pressurized by Srikumar and other contractors not to, and as a result he did not. Due to this, the case was closed unresolved with no one found guilty.
In this situation, it can be concluded that:
- Other contractors are unethical, but no conclusion can be made about Naresh.
- Naresh is ethical and moral, while other contractors are immoral and unethical.
- Other contractors are moral, and they prevented Naresh from being immoral.
- Naresh, Srikumar and other contractors are both immoral and unethical.
- Srikumar is immoral, but ethical, while Naresh is not unethical.
No comments:
Post a Comment