CAT

The Computer valley, selling computer hardware, is the only one of its kind in the remote village of Darbhanga. Because online purchases take two weeks or more to arrive, The Computer valley is a quick stop for buying items such as pen drives and USB cables. Besides selling computer hardware, The Computer valley also undertakes repairs of out-of-warranty products.

The Computer valley revenues for the last 3 years has decreased to 4 % from 12% in earlier years. As the e- commerce is growing small shops is struggling to increase profitability.  The Computer valley has been offering a discount on MRP to compete with e-commerce prices.

When Priyanka opened the package, she was perplexed. She received cotton sofa covers instead of satin sofa covers, she had ordered. Priyanka ordered them for her father’s new house from a popular e-commerce website “Slipmart” that hosted products of many sellers.

Confused, Priyanka contacted the seller's office using the details given on the package. The seller's representative profusely regretted and promised to send the satin sofa covers at no extra cost. He added that Priyanka need not return the cotton covers she received. Priyanka happily accepted the deal.

A few days later, Priyanka received another package from the seller. Unfortunately, this package also contained cotton sofa covers. Completely disillusioned with the seller's professionalism, Priyanka decided to put to use these cotton sofa covers also.

Q. Priyanka gave least star out of the maximum 5 stars to the seller and described her experience as pathetic. When the RM called and pleaded with her to change her feedback and upgrade them to 5-star, as they had already terminated the employee contract. He appealed that they were a young organization and that their sales were getting badly affected. Given the circumstances, what should be the IDEAL response?

DIRECTIONS: Each question is followed by two statements, A and B. Answer each question using the following instructions.
Choose 1: If the question can be answered by using statement A alone but not by using B alone.
Choose 2: If the question can be answered by using statement B alone but not by using A alone.
Choose 3: If the question can be answered by using either statement alone.
Choose 4: If the question can be answered by using both the statements together but not by either statement.

Q. In a cricket match, the “man of the match” award is given to the player scoring the highest number of runs. In case of a tie, the player (out of those locked in the tie) who has taken the higher number of catches is chosen. Even thereafter if there is a tie, the player (out of those locked in the tie) who has dropped fewer catches is selected. Aakash, Biplab and Chirag who were contenders for the award dropped at least one catch each. Biplab dropped 2 catches more than Aakash did, scored 50, and took 2 catches. Chirag got two chances to catch and dropped both. Who was the „man of the match‟?

A. Chirag made 15 runs less than both Aakash and Biplab.
B. The catches dropped by Biplab are 1 more than the catches taken by Aakash.

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
PASSAGE
The development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.
Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.
The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.
Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.
On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have prevented press photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.
What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.

(2010)