Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbons buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea... and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Anikets stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-olds scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school. But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Aniket was from a very rich family, with its ...

Q. Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?

a)
Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.
b)
Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.
c)
Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.
d)
Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.
e)
Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village o...

Since a feasible long term solution would be required here, offering extra security might be an added expenditure and will not benefit the village in a significant way. Eliminate option 1.
Compromising on the quality of education or sending the best students to schools in the city might not benefit the people of Adpur in a big way. Eliminate option 2.
Seeking help from NGOs in this situation might not lead to any immediate consequences. Eliminate option 3.
Thus, the best decision would be to ask the schools to train local teachers and school management. Option 4 is correct. Option 5 would be unfair and partial.
Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

This question is part of UPSC exam. View all CAT courses

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Aniket was from a very rich family, with its heritage in the village of Adpur in Gujarat. He was sent to a school in the city for the best education, where he stayed on until after post-graduation. With the fast paced life of upper-class pursuits Aniket rarely saw the ground below. One day on a visit to his village, he came across a lanky little girl. All of nine years, maybe even seven — it is difficult to tell in poorly-fed children. Falsely made up, oiled hair, nose rings and an outsized purple ribbon that stared out from behind her head — shecut a pathetic picture. She had just been sold for Rs 5,000 to a city- bred man, who was taking her with him to look after his newborn. The life he had known never indicated that there were many who lived a different life. Purple ribbon’s buyer griped that Rs 5,000 was too much, refusing to buy. The broker pleaded, “Where will she go, poor thing? Keep her as your servant, she will make your tea...” and offered to cut the price to Rs 4,500. Aniket’s stomach churned. Was this the value of a child? As he drove to the city, he felt chased by the nine-year-old’s scrubbed face framed by outsized purple ribbons. Unable to live with this memory, and seeking a solution, which he knew his gaggle of friends would not be able to provide, Aniket went back to Adpur determined to change what he had seen.Q.Aniket went to the best schools in India and asked them if they would help. “I will support you financially, you just come to my village and open a school." But they all declined. Adpur was notorious for crime and was extremely unsafe, they pointed out. How should Aniket react?a)Offer them extra security by hiring a private security force.b)Approach schools that might not be as renowned but have agreed to open a branch in Adpur.c)Seek help from non-government organizations in convincing the school authorities.d)Ask the schools to train local teachers and school management.e)Choose the best students from the local schools and fund their education at one of the best schools in the city.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam